Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CONWAY AND COLWYN BAY JOINT WATER SUPPLY BOARD) BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIRECTED MINEWORKERS (GRATUITY)

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will take into consideration a gratuity being given to the boys directed to work in mines, in view of the fact that had they not been so directed they would have served in His Majesty's Forces and so would have become eligible for the Forces gratuity.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this matter.

Mr. Tinker: If my right hon. Friend makes any pant of this kind, will other miners receive one too?

Mr. Bevin: We have that under consideration.

Sir E. Cadogan: How soon will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot say. This is a difficult problem and many others on similar lines are involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL RECONVERSION

Electrical Plant (Manufacture)

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Labour what provision he is making for

releasing labour in order to accelerate the manufacture of the 3,000,000 kw. of new electrical plant that is to be installed before the winter of 1948.

Mr. Bevin: This at present is regarded as post-war production, and it cannot be given labour which might otherwise be employed on war production. Subject to this, my Department will do what it can to supply labour, as I am well aware of the importance of heavy electrical plant.

Women's Land Army

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: asked the Minister of Labour how many women he has directed into the W.L.A. from civil employment; and what steps are proposed to assist them to rehabilitate themselves in their former professions when released from the W.L.A.

Mr. Bevin: No women have been directed into the Women's Land Army. Members will be eligible to apply for grants under the Further Education and Training Scheme applicable to training for the professions and higher-grade posts, and for training under the training scheme set out in the statement made in the House on 6th April, 1944. I am sending the hon. Member papers in which these Schemes are described.

Lieut. - Commander Joynson - Hicks: While appreciating the Minister's reply, may I ask if he realises that many of these women who have been working in the roughest weather and under the hardest conditions will require rehabilitation before they can take up their professions again?

Mr. Bevin: The question of how the Land Army shall be treated is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, but I would point out that women have been directed to many other very difficult jobs, and the question you have to decide is whether you will make an exception in one case and ignore all the others who have suffered inconvenience.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Do the schemes to which my right hon. Friend has referred as being available to the Land Army, include entry into the Civil Service under the scheme recently announced?

Mr. Bevin: I must have notice of that question.

Building Operatives

Mr. Silkin: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that numbers of building operatives are unwilling to be demobilised from the Forces because they object to the condition of release, that they are to be subject to direction for an indefinite period; and whether he will consider some relaxation of this condition.

Mr. Bevin: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to release from the Forces in Class B after the defeat of Germany. Men who are offered and accept out of turn release for urgent reconstruction work must expect to remain on that work as long as they are required for it. It is not possible at present to say how long this will be.

Mr. Petherick: Will my right hon. Friend note from the question that there is at least one Member of his Party who is not rejoicing very much over controls?

Service Personnel (Trade Union Membership)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Labour whether demobilised men and women who are offered employment by his Department will be required to become members of the appropriate trades unions.

Mr. Bevin: No such requirement is imposed by my Department.

Sir W. Smithers: In the event of someone being found employment through the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and being unwilling to join a trade union, what power has the right hon. Gentleman got to stop strikes and other industrial disturbances?

Mr. Leslie: Will non-unionists be entitled to trade union rates, which they have never contributed for or helped to get?

Oral Answers to Questions — MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (STAFFS)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour if lie is aware of the dissatisfaction felt by Scottish representatives who attended the recent meeting convened by his Department in London to consider the problem of recruiting attendants for mental institutions; that these representatives have reported that the acute shortage of attendants in Scottish institutions was never discussed nor

their prepared case heard; and, in view of the grave nature of the problem in Scotland, what action he proposes to take to meet the local authorities' needs.

Mr. Bevin: I assume my right hon. Friend is referring to the recent meeting of the National Advisory Council for the Recruitment and Distribution of Nurses and Midwives held on 26th January. Discussions at meetings of the council are confidential. I am, however, assured by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who is chairman of the Council, that the Scottish representatives, like others present, had full opportunity to contribute to the discussion on the problem of the recruitment of nursing staff for mental institutions. The discussion was not concluded, but will be continued at the next meeting to which the Scottish representatives have again been invited.

Mr. Stewart: In view of the statements made by these representatives on their return to Scotland, will my right hon. Friend indicate when the next meeting is likely to be held?

Mr. Bevin: It is a matter of profound regret that, if a Minister has a confidential meeting with public representatives, they should go back to Scotland and make statements. I should have to inquire about the next meeting.

Mr. Muff: Is the same inquiry going on with regard to English mental institutions?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly, Sir. The mental institution problem from the point of view of manning is a difficult one and I am doing my best to solve it for both England and Wales and Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Tuberculous Children (Sanatoria)

Colonel Lyons: asked the Minister of Health how many children of or under school age are awaiting admission to anti-tuberculosis sanatoria in England and Wales, each separately; what is the average length of waiting time between application and admission; and whether all possible steps are being taken to reduce the interval of waiting by temporary improvisation or otherwise.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): Returns from local authorities as at 31st December last showed that 436 children in England and 112 in Wales were then


awaiting institutional treatment for pulmonary or non-pulmonary tuberculosis. I regret that I have no information as to the average length of the waiting period, and to obtain it would involve an extensive special inquiry. All possible steps continue to be taken to increase institutional accommodation for tuberculosis cases, but the exigencies of war make this very difficult at present.

Colonel Lyons: While realising the difficulties, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to give an assurance that he will keep on trying to reduce this waiting period as much as possible?

Mr. Willink: Certainly, Sir.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the waiting period is due to lack of people to look after the patients, rather than to any lack of accommodation?

Mr. Willink: The greater difficulty is with regard to staff rather than accommodation.

Water Supply (Defford)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to accede to the requests that have been made to him from the Defford Parish Council, in view of the hardship and danger to health which exist through the inadequate water supply at the present time.

Mr. Willink: No, Sir. The extension of the main desired by the parish council is a matter which concerns the Pershore rural district council. As the authority responsible for public water supplies, the rural district council submitted a scheme to me in September last for providing piped supplies in the parishes of Defford and Woodmancote at an estimated cost of £6,400. They wish this scheme to be considered for Government grant under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944. The position as regards this, and other schemes of the kind, is that while execution of the schemes and determination of grant must await the end of the war in Europe, I am prepared to examine the schemes now from the technical standpoint and, if necessary, to hold local inquiries.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. and learned Friend fully aware of the urgent

need of enlightened action in these matters, in view, of the fact that these places have no water supply?

Mr. Willink: That is why the Bill was introduced last year. It was in order to make sure that all these districts got on with their plans now so that they can be put into operation at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. De la Bère: Then my right hon. and learned Friend will help us in every way?

Mr. Willink: Certainly, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Residential Premises (Requisitioning)

Mr. Pritt: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that dwelling-houses and flats suitable for occupation as such are being used in various parts of London for storage purposes; and whether he will introduce a regulation to make it possible for Metropolitan borough councils to requisition such premises for the housing of bombed-out persons.

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many buildings designed and erected for residential purposes are being used, or are being acquired with intention to use, for office and commercial purposes; and whether, in view of grave housing short age, he will encourage local authorities to requisition such buildings for the use of homeless citizens.

Mr. Willink: I am aware that a number of buildings erected for residential purposes are being used for other purposes. It would not be appropriate that requisitioning powers should be applied to such properties generally, but if my hon. Friends have any particular case in mind and will let me have details I will have inquiries made.

Mr. Pritt: I will let the right hon. and learned Gentleman have details. Is he aware that what is happening is that a flat becomes vacant, and before anybody can come along and live in it, the landlord fills it with stored goods, and when the council are asked to requisition it, they say that the landlord has already occupied it?

Mr. Willink: I shall be glad to look into cases of that kind, but many of these houses are large old-fashioned houses which are not suitable for rehousing homeless persons.

Mr. Butcher: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that one of these large old-fashioned houses can be converted into two or four smaller dwellings which give housing accommodation, whereas if it is used for office accommodation there is actually a loss of housing accommodation?

Mr. Willink: There is a case for the sort of conversion my hon. Friend has in mind, but that is not the sort of work we are able to do much this year.

Mr. Pritt: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept my assurance that there was no collusion between the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) and myself in putting these Questions?

Well Walk (Hampstead)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Health whether, before approving the Hampstead Borough Council's proposal to acquire and pull down numbers 7 and 9, Well Walk, he will consult the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Royal Fine Art Commission.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir.

Tenancies (Priority)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Health which person, or what body, decides who shall be the inhabitants of the new houses; under what system of priority are they allocated; and is he satisfied that the allocations made to date have been made impartially.

Mr. Willink: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 14th December to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) which explained the principles on which tenants are selected for council houses. I have no reason to suppose that local authorities are failing to observe these principles.

Sir W. Smithers: Has not the right hon. and learned Gentleman received complaints on the lines indicated in the Question?

Mr. Willink: No, Sir, not that I can remember.

Sewerage Scheme, Amersham

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed to give early sanction for the construction of a workable disposal unit, by the Colne Valley Sewerage Board, so as to permit the Amersham Rural District Council to proceed with the 300 houses scheduled for this area as soon as labour and materials are available.

Mr. Willink: I am afraid that I can hold out no hope that permission will be given to begin the Colne Valley Sewerage-Board's constructional programme until after the end of the war in Europe. I understand that the Board are advised that it is not practicable to construct a sewage disposal unit dealing solely with sewage from the Amersham rural district. Consequently, facilities for disposing of the Amersham sewage will not be available until the first instalment of the board's programme, which comprises the disposal works and such trunk sewers as are required to pass an adequate volume of sewage to the works to enable them to-function satisfactorily, has been completed.

Sir S. Reed: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that this area is comparatively ready, and that it only needs the construction of the sewage disposal works to make a very large area immediately available for houses?

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir, and the Board has been given definite assurance that this, scheme will be given a high priority at the earliest possible moment; but it may be that temporary arrangements will have-to be made for the first year or two.

Hutments

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health how many hutments and what types are being or will be erected on sites whose vicinity has been conveyed to him; how many persons these will accommodate; whether these hutments are available only to those who lived in adjacent areas; and what arrangements have been made respecting the ultimate restoration of amenities.

Mr. Willink: It is proposed to erect on the site to which my hon. Friend refers, 100 hutments of the curved asbestos type which will accommodate about 300 people. They will be offered in the first place to people who have been made homeless in


the area of the local authority concerned but any surplus will be offered to homeless people from other areas. The intention is that the land shall ultimately be restored to its former use.

Mr. Sorensen: When is that restoration likely to take place? Further, is the Minister aware that the 100 huts proposed are quite inadequate for the tremendous need that exists in the area? Can he say whether a much wider area will be taken over for that purpose?

Mr. Willink: We are aware of the need, as my hon. Friend I am sure appreciates, but this way of dealing with the matter, the provision of emergency huts, is not one that we want to extend too far.

Mr. Sorensen: While I agree that the huts are horrible constructions, nevertheless, are they not very necessary at this time?

Mr. Willink: The best way we can use our labour at present is in the repair of damaged houses.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN BOROUGHS (LOANS)

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Health under what conditions the loans were made to the Metropolitan boroughs in order to prevent a serious increase in rates.

Mr. Willink: I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of a reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) on 24th June, 1941, in which the principles and conditions on which these advances have been made were fully explained.

Captain Duncan: Does the Minister expect that the loan outstanding will be repaid in due course?

Mr. Willink: I could not say that without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING PERMITS (AUTHORITIES)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health the total number of departments and authorities who are required to give permission before either a housing development can be approved or normal commercial buildings carried through to completion.

Mr. Willink: I am sending my hon. Friend a memorandum indicating the various authorities who have to be consulted under the various enactments.

Mr. Bossom: Could my right hon. and learned Friend publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT so that all authorities will be able to see it? At the present time, there is much confusion.

Mr. Willink: The memorandum which I have offered to send to my hon. Friend is in course of revision at the moment but I intend to publish it when it is ready.

Mr. De la Bère: How many authorities are there?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARTIFICAL LIMBS (FITTING CENTRE)

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the inaccessibility of Roehampton, he will consider having a fitting and refitting centre for artificial limbs situated in some suitable place in central London reasonably adjacent by tube or omnibus to the six main-line railway stations, thus saving the time of those having to attend and for the convenience of their employees as well.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The hon. Member's suggestion, whilst it would meet certain criticisms which have been made, would give rise to difficulties, particularly at the present time. I will, however, bear it in mind, but before reaching any final conclusion I should prefer to await the report of the Committee on Artificial Limbs under the Chairmanship of Sir Brunei Cohen.

Oral Answers to Questions — S.S. "ASHBURY" (DEPENDANTS PENSION CLAIMS)

Mr. Lakin: asked the Minister of Pensions if he has considered the claims for pensions of dependants of the officers and crew of the s.s. "Ashbury," which was lost with all hands on or about 8th January, 1945; and whether this case is covered by his Ministry's ruling concerning eligibility for pension in respect of certain special risks imposed by the war.

Sir W. Womersley: Inquiries into the unfortunate loss of this vessel are still proceeding, but, on the evidence so far


available, the disaster appears to have been due to a marine peril, in which event any compensation would be payable as under the Workmen's Compensation Acts and not under the War Pensions (Mercentile Marine) Scheme. For the present the owners' representatives are making interim payments to the dependants, but acceptance of these payments will not prejudice the consideration of claims by my Department when all available information has been obtained.

Mr. Lakin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this ship was incurring special risks by taking the Northern route at this time of the year, when she was in ballast, of low power and unable to keep up with the convoy, and that those risks certainly were imposed by the needs of the war? Was not the ship's route dictated by the Admiralty and is it not a fact that no ship's master would, in such circumstances, have taken that route of his own volition?

Sir W. Womersley: All those circumstances have been inquired into. I want to get this case over as soon as possible, but I must await the report of the inquirers and then I will deal with it as soon as I can.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Might I suggest that the Minister should consult the Admiralty, in the matter, as all merchant shipping is now under their direction? If the master and crew were lost in this way, surely it was because of a special risk imposed by the war?

Sir W. Womersley: The Admiralty are being consulted in this matter, but I would like to point out that the dependants of those lost in this unfortunate affair will receive compensation, either from my Department or under workmen's compensation.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Agricultural Research

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the strain upon the resources of the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture in the West Indies, he will afford special encouragement to the develop-

ment of one or more such centres of postgraduate teaching and research in India.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): There are in India a number of institutions concerned with agricultural post-graduate teaching and research. The Government of India have under active consideration plans for the extension after the war of the facilities available.

British Troops (Income Tax)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware there is need for information on the following points to our troops in India: the rate of exchange of rupees to £ sterling paid to a British subject receiving pay from the British Government, the amount of Income Tax which a married man with children, a single man with dependants and a single man without dependants, respectively, have deducted from their pay when paid in rupees by the British Government; and will he make a statement.

Mr. Amery: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the British troops in India who are paid in rupees under the Indian Pay Code and are liable to tax under the Indian Income Tax Act. The troops are paid by the Government of India and not by the British Government. British other ranks are paid their sterling Royal Warrant rates of pay converted at is. 4d. instead of the official rate of is. 6d. This amounts in effect to a colonial allowance of 12½ per cent. In the case of officers there is no direct conversion of sterling rates, but the consolidated Indian rupee rates are built up on a basis of is. 4d. The amount of Indian Income Tax varies, of course, with the rate of pay, but as I have explained previously, it does not, under the Indian Income Tax Act, vary according to whether the man is single or married or is with or without dependants. I am sending my hon. Friend a statement of the present rates levied under the Indian Income Tax Act.

Mr. Tinker: The right hon. Gentleman has said he is sending me a statement; would it not be of interest to other hon. Members if it were printed in HANSARD?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir.

Following is the statement:

RATES OF INDIAN INCOME-TAX AND SUPER-TAX FOR THE YEAR 1944–45 (Including surcharge imposed by the Indian Finance Act, 1944).


PART I.
Rate.


A. In the case of every individual, Hindu undivided family, unregistered firm and other association of persons not being a case to which paragraph B of this Part applies:



(1) On the first Rs. 1,500 of total income (=£112 10s. 0d.)
NIL.


(2) On the next Rs. 3,500 of total income (=£262 10s. 0d.)
1 anna 3 pies in the rupee (=1/6¾ in the £).


(3) On the next Rs. 5,000 of total income (=£375 0s. 0d.)
2 annas 1 pie in the rupee (=2/7¼ in the £).


(4) On the next Rs. 5,000 of total income (=£375 0s. 0d.)
3 annas 6 pies in the rupee (=4/4½ in the £).


(5) On the balance of total income
4 annas 6 pies in the rupee (=5/7½ in the £).


(i) Provided that no income-tax shall be payable on a total income which does not exceed Rs. 2,000.



(ii) Provided further, that the income-tax payable shall in no case exceed half the amount by which the total income exceeds Rs. 2,000.



B. In the case of every company and local authority, and in every case in whish, under the provisions of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922, income-tax is to be charged at the maximum rate:



On the whole of total income
4 annas 6 pies in the rupee (5/7½ in the £).

PART II.


Rates of Super-tax.


A. In the case of every individual, Hindu undivided family, unregistered firm and other association of persons, not being a case to which paragraphs B and C of this Part apply:



(1) On the first Rs. 25,000 of total income (=£1,875)
NIL.


(2) On the next Rs. 10,000 of total income (£=£750)
2 annas in the rupee (=2/6 in the £).


(3) On the next Rs. 20,000 of total income (=£1,500)
4 annas in the rupee (=5/-in the £).


(4) On the next Rs. 70,000 of total income (=£5,250)
5 annas 6 pies in the rupee (=6/10½ in the £).


(5) On the next Rs. 75,000 of total income (=£5,625)
7 annas in the rupee (=8/9 in the £).


(6) On the next Rs. 1,50,000 of total income (=£11,250)
8 annas in the rupee (=10/- in the £)


(7) On the next Rs. 1,50,000 of total income (=£11,250)
9 annas in the rupee (=11/3 in the £).


(8) On the balance of total income
10 annas 6 pies in the rupee (13/1½ in the £).


B. In the case of every local authority:



On the whole of total income
2 annas in the rupee (2/6 in the £).


C. In the case of an association of persons being a co-operative society, other than the Sanikatta Saltowners' Society in the Bombay Presidency, for the time being registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, or an Act of the Provincial Legislature governing the registration of Cooperative Societies:



(1) On the first Rs. 25,000 of total income (=£1,875)
NIL.


(2) On the balance of total income
2 annas in the rupee (=2/6 in the £).

D. In the case of every company:
Rate.


On the whole of total income
3 annas in the rupee (=3/9 in the £).


Provided that a rebate of one anna in the rupee shall be allowed on the total income as reduced by the amount of any dividend declared in British India in respect of the profits of the previous year for the assessment for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, not being a dividend payable at a fixed rate or a dividend declared on or before the 29th day of February, 1944, by a company to which but for Sub-section (8) of Section 6 of the Indian Finance Act, 1944, Section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, would be applicable.

Indian Delegate's Speech, Washington

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for India if he has considered a statement made at a meeting in Washington by Mrs. Pandit, a delegate to the Pacific Relations Conference, of which a copy has been sent to him, that India is a vast concentration camp and a country without religious differences; and whether he proposes to take steps to counteract the harmful effect that such statements may have on public opinion amongst our Allies.

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. I have seen the statement referred to. I have no doubt that both the Indian Agency-General and the British Information Services in Washington will take whatever steps they judge necessary to deal with the matter unless, indeed, they feel that the American public have already assessed such obviously fantastic assertions at their true value.

Sir A. Knox: Has my right hon. Friend had any chance of seeing the actual report? Does our information service take any steps to make the public wiser on the subject?

Mr. Amery: Yes, our information service in Washington is doing very good work.

Earl Winterton: Are steps taken by the Information Department to publish leaflets and statements by Mr. Roy and other Indians in public life on the action of the Congress Party, in which they say Congress is run by the most reactionary employers and big financiers in India?

Mr. Amery: I will make inquiries.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Mr. Roy to whom the Noble Lord has referred, the one who received £12,000 subsidy from the Indian Government?

Mr. Amery: I have already dealt with that point.

Milk Supply (Incident, Bombay)

Mr. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the action of wholesale milk dealers in Bombay who poured large quantities of fresh milk into the streets as a protest against the recent Government Order restricting the use of fresh milk in restaurants so as to enable supplies for children and expectant mothers; what action is being taken against those responsible for this action; and will he now remove the distribution of milk and other essential food from such private interests with a view to its public control and distribution.

Mr. Amery: I have no information about this regrettable incident beyond the Press reports. The matter is obviously one for the Government of Bombay who, I am confident, will take whatever action is called for.

Mr. Hynd: Are any inquiries being made into the authenticity of this report; and in view of the unfortunate repercussions which this kind of thing must have on the war effort, is the India Office taking any action?

Mr. Amery: I must leave a matter of this sort to the Government of Bombay. It is impossible for the Secretary of State, at this end of the world, to deal with a matter of that sort. The Government of Bombay have been doing everything they can both to control the milk supply, and to see that it reaches those who need it most.

Mr. Shinwell: While recognising that these provincial matters must be left to provincial Governments does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that an incident of this sort, if accurately reported, has violent reactions on our associations with India? Ought he not to consider the matter from that angle?

Mr. Amery: I am not depreciating the importance of this matter in any way, and I nope that the Government of Bombay are dealing effectively with it.

Indian Officers (Command and Staff Appointments)

Sir S. Reed: asked the Secretary of State for India how many Indian officers of the Indian Army now hold command and staff appointments.

Mr. Amery: Indian officers are now in command of 18 Infantry battalions, three Regiments of the Indian Armoured Corps, and nine Units of the Indian States Forces serving with the Indian Army. There are also 10 Indian officers in Lieutenant-Colonels' appointments in the Royal Indian Army Service Corps. On the staff there is one Indian officer serving in the rank of Brigadier, and 19 in Lieutenant-Colonels' staff appointments. I have no figures for staff appointments below the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.

Food Situation

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India if he will make a statement respecting the present food situation; and what progress has been made respecting the campaign to increase the production of foodstuffs.

Mr. Amery: The food situation in India and the progress of the "Grow More Food" campaign have been reviewed at an All-India Food Conference recently held in New Delhi and I am placing in the Library of the House reports of speeches by Sir J. P. Srivastava, Member for Food, and Sir Jogendra Singh, Member for Education, Health and Lands.

Mr. Sorensen: Meanwhile, could the right hon. Gentleman say exactly what percentage increase in the production of foodstuffs has been achieved during the last two or three years?

Mr. Amery: I cannot answer that question off-hand.

Service Personnel (Indian Hospitality)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India if the Government of India have taken any steps to encourage Indians, who could do so, to offer hospitality to British troops in India.

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. The Government of India and the Commander-in-Chief

have brought to the notice of the Indian public the importance offering hospitality to British troops in India and many British troops have been so entertained. Generous hospitality has also been extended by the Princes of India.

Mr. Sorensen: Has this encouragement been extended to all kinds of Indians who do not live in the princely States, including, for instance, Mrs. Pandit?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. If the hon. Member will read my answer, he will see that I have covered that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILDREN'S HOMES

Committee of Inquiry

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now name the members of the committee which is to inquire into the provision made for children deprived of a normal home life.

Mr. Viant: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now give the names of the members of the proposed committee on children who lack a normal home life.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, answer these Questions by means of a statement at the end of Questions.

Later—

Mr. H. Morrison: This committee, which as previously stated, is to be appointed jointly by the Minister of Health, the Minister of Education and myself, will be constituted as follows:

The Chairman will be:

Miss Myra Curtis, C.B.E.—Principal of Newnham College, Cambridge.
The members will be:

The hon. Member for Dartford (Mrs. J. L. Adamson, M.P.).
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mrs. Cazalet Keir, M.P.).
The hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. H. Graham White, M.P.).
Miss S. Clement Brown—In charge of Mental Health Course for Psychiatric Workers, London School of Economics.
Mr. R. J. Evans—Chairman, South Wales Regional Council of Labour, and Organiser (Cardiff and District) Shop Assistants' Union.
Miss Lucy G. Fildes—Provisional National Council for Mental Health.
Miss M. L. Harford—Chief Woman Officer, National Council of Social Service.


Dr. Somerville Hastings—Chairman of the London County Council.
Alderman Miss M. Kingsmill Jones, O.B.E., City Alderman, Manchester, and Chairman of the Residential Homes and Special Schools Sub-Committee of the Manchester City Council.
The Rev. J. H. Litten—Honorary Secretary to the Council of the Associated Children's Homes.
Mr. J. Moss—Public Assistance Officer, Kent County Council.
Mrs. Helen Murtagh—Chairman, Maternity and Child Welfare Committee, City of Birmingham.
Mr. Henry Salt—Member of the Chancery Bar.
Professor J. C. Spence, M.C., M.D.— Professor of Child Health in the University of Durham.
Mrs. F. G. A. Temple—Widow of the late Archbishop of Canterbury.
Mr. S. O. Walmsley—Headmaster of Bewerley Park Camp School, Yorks.

Mr. Keeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the selection as chairman of this Committee of one of the two persons who made the much-criticised report on the L.C.C. remand homes will not inspire public confidence in the inquiry?

Mr. Morrison: If I may say so I think that is a regrettable and an unfair observation. The point not unnaturally was taken into account but the question is whether the controversy has impaired the integrity of these two eminent persons and I do not think it has. Moreover, some of the comment has really been grossly unfair, as witness one extract from a leading article in a newspaper which1 says:
His Committee"—
that is to say the Committee on the London remand home—
has made every possible effort to whitewash the London County Council and the Home Office.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. If my right hon. Friend is to give a lengthy defence of the attacks which he alleges have been made upon the head of the L.C.C. are we to be allowed to debate the question, because it seems to have nothing to do with the Question and the answer?

Mr. Speaker: There was a supplementary question which raised the point, but the main Question asked for the names of the Committee, and I think we might leave it at that.

Mr. A. Bevan: On that point of Order. As, following the reading of the list of names, a statement was made casting

prejudice upon the chairmanship of this Committee, is not my right hon. Friend entitled to try to remove that prejudice?

Mr. Morrison: I have very little more to say, but my hon. Friend made an imputation that this lady was not fit to be chairman of the Committee, and I submit that I am entitled to give reasons why I think she is.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot stop the right hon. Gentleman doing that, but I suggest that we ought not to go on to a Debate. An imputation was made, and the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to give an answer.

Mr. Morrison: I can only add that all this was taken into account and the question is whether criticism of the kind I have quoted is fair. I think it is disgracefully unfair, if not libellous, and that if we had dropped our intention, which was made before the Report was published, to appoint Miss Curtis in the light of statements of that sort, we should not have been very upright in our conduct.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public will welcome the setting up of this Committee and particularly the choice for chairman of a woman of the highest integrity?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady cannot go into the personalities of the members of the Committee.

Dr. Summerskill: I promise to keep off personalities. In view of the urgency of this matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to press the Committee to expedite their business in order that their recommendations may be implemented without delay?

Mr. Morrison: I will certainly do anything I can in that direction. They have a big job, as hon. Members will recognise, but it may be possible for interim reports to be presented.

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: Can the Home Secretary say how many of the ladies who are to be on this Committee are married, and how many are mothers?

Mr. Morrison: As to those who are married, I gave their names with "Mrs." How many children they have, I do not know.

Inspection

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many charitable homes for children are not inspected by Government officials; and how many children are resident in these homes.

Mr. H. Morrison: It is provided in the Children and Young Persons Act that any home or other institution for the boarding, care and maintenance of poor children or young persons, being a home or other institution supported wholly or partly by voluntary contributions, shall send prescribed particulars to the Home Office, and all such homes are subject to inspection by Government inspectors. There are a few charitable homes so well endowed that they do not depend on voluntary contributions: the number, I understand, is very small, but I am not in a position to furnish the statistics asked for.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the general disquiet which has been caused by the disclosures about these homes and about cruelty to children, will my right hon. Friend acquire powers to inspect every home?

Mr. Morrison: That is a matter which will come within the terms of reference of the Committee which is to inquire into the provision of homes for children, and no doubt they will give very considerable attention to it.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is not the whole of this trouble caused very largely by the shortage of staff, and also of inspectors?

Mr. Morrison: That is undoubtedly a difficulty which the House, and also the Press, must take fully into account. All these places, whether municipally or privately conducted, have great difficulty in getting adequate staff in present conditions.

Earl Winterton: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "subject to inspection"? Does that mean that there is a regular inspection, or only an occasional one?

Mr. Morrison: It means that, legally, they are capable of being inspected; and we inspect them as far as time permits and with such regularity as we can. But it is a very big job, and the number of inspectors is very limited just now.

Viscountess Astor: At this moment, when the country is so disquieted about some of the shocking homes and about the conditions of children, will the right hon. Gentleman tell people that there are some magnificent homes,, and magnificent women working in them, and that it is wrong to let the world think that England is behind any other country in looking after its children?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with the spirit of what my hon. Friend has said. I think there is some danger of our getting that wrong impression.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Service Vehicles and Equipment (Disposal)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Cook: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made for the disposal of C.D. vehicles, surplus to requirements, with particular reference to fire pumps and ambulances.

Mr. H. Morrison: Surplus fire pumps and other surplus vehicles of the National Fire Service and the Civil Defence Reserve, being Government property, will be handed to the appropriate Disposal Department in accordance with the White Paper on the Disposal of Government Surplus Stores. Special consideration is being given to the possibility of arrangements under which works brigades could acquire, at reduced prices, pumps which have been on loan to them on behalf of the Government. Other Civil Defence vehicles are the property of local authorities, who have been told by circulars that surplus vehicles may be sold locally under certain conditions. With regard to ambulances in particular I have arranged, in agreement with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health, that the best vehicles will be available to be retained by local authorities requiring them for their normal ambulance services.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is it proposed that the whole of the Civil Defence organisation should be disbanded? Surely some sort of nucleus will be kept.

Mr. Morrison: I can assure the hon. Member that that is not being lost sight of.

War Gratuities

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any decision has been come to as to the eligibility of the N.F.S. and Civil Defence services for war gratuities.

Mr. H. Morrison: I cannot add anything at present to the reply which I gave to the Question on this matter by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hornsey (Captain Gammans) on 14th February.

Surplus Bedding (Disposal)

Mr. Higgs: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the large number of beds and blankets which are not in use in certain parts of the country since the fire guards were ordered to stand down; and will he permit them to be sent to relieve the needs of bombed areas in London or on the Continent.

Mr. H. Morrison: With regard to the comparatively small quantities of beds and blankets which are held by local authorities for Fire Guard purposes, I have authorised the surplus to be sold either to individual ratepayers who, by reason of war circumstances, are considered deserving of special assistance, or to recognised traders. Occupiers of business premises probably possess larger quantities of these articles, and are at liberty to dispose of them as they wish. Many have, I understand, been informed by the Board of Trade by what channels they can be sent for the benefit of persons in bombed areas or for relief on the Continent.

Mr. Bowles: Does my right hon. Friend not think that aerial bombing is nearly over now?

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: When will these instructions come into effect? The shortage of blankets in many places is very serious.

Mr. Morrison: The authorisation has been given already.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL ISLANDS (CONDITIONS)

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is in a position to make any further statement on conditions in the Channel Islands.

Mr. H. Morrison: Information has now been received about conditions in the Channel Islands from the delegates of the International Red Cross Committee who visited the Islands on the first voyage of the "Vega" at the end of December, and conferred with the German military authorities and the local British civil authorities. This information is being carefully studied with a view to seeing whether any further steps can be taken to alleviate the hardships suffered by our unhappy fellow subjects, as a result of the German occupation. The "Vega" arrived in the Islands on her second voyage on 6th February with a further cargo of food supplies from the British Red Cross, a substantial quantity of medical and surgical supplies, supplied as a free gift by Messrs. Boots, salt, and other miscellaneous supplies. These should meet the most pressing needs of the civil population, with the exception of flour and coal. A consignment of flour is being despatched on the next voyage of the ship which should begin shortly. The questions of the despatch of coal, and of Red Cross postal messages, and the evacuation of those civilians in need of special medical attention, which cannot be provided in the Islands are being urgently pursued, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Captain Gammans: Can my right hon. Friend say if there is any evidence that people in the Channel Islands are getting these supplies, and that they are not being taken by the Germans?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I cannot give any detailed information about that.

Mr. Thorne: Has my right hon. Friend hoard anything about conditions in the Channel Islands? Is there any intention of clearing out the Germans?

Mr. Morrison: It is really no use my hon. Friend asking me questions of that kind. Obviously, that is a matter for a Service Minister.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there has been a distribution in the Island of Sark, as well as in the larger Islands?

Mr. Morrison: We are doing our best to see that all the Channel Islanders get their share, but naturally the distribution varies from place to place.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE

Future Administration

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to make a statement on the future of the N.F.S.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am not yet in a position to add to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) on 7th December, except to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I intend to resume our discussions with the representatives of the Local Authorities' Associations as soon as they are ready.

Captain Gammans: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he feels himself bound by any previous declarations that the fire brigades must return to local authority control, or if he feels he has a free hand to deal with this matter in accordance with the experience gained in the past four years?

Mr. Morrison: I have made two declarations, and they should both be examined. The line we have taken is that we have come to no decision, that we want first to know the views of the local authorities.

Sir Adam Maitland: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consult with the representatives of the National Fire Brigades Association?

Mr. Morrison: Perhaps, in due course, but first we thought it right to consult the local authorities.

Application for Release

Major York: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconsider the release of the fireman of whose name he has been informed, in view of the fact that his employers are at least four months in arrears with orders for schoolchildren's clothing; that no alternative pattern cutter can be found by the Ministry of Labour; and that his release has been recommended by the Board of Trade.

Mr. H. Morrison: Applications for the release of members of the National Fire Service for industrial employment are not granted unless they are recommended by the Ministry of Labour and National Service. On reconsideration of the case referred to in the Question the Ministry of

Labour have recommended that the fireman in question should be released for the particular employment suggested, and arrangements are being made for his discharge from the National Fire Service as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTORAL REGISTRATION (BUSINESS PREMISES VOTE)

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the directors of the B.B.C. to give publicity to the fact that it is necessary for the professional and business vote to be claimed before the end of February in order that professional and business men may be included in the new register.

Mr. H. Morrison: In a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division (Sir H. Webbe) on 15th February, I indicated that the business premises vote had to be claimed by the end of February. The B.B.C. gave publicity to this requirement in their report of Parliamentary proceedings.

Sir W. Wakefield: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that further publicity could, with advantage, be given in view of the shortness of time there is for those concerned to get on the register, and also because of the shortage of staff and the very heavy pressure of work on business men, who are now engaged in the war effort?

Mr. Morrison: I fully recognise that, in view of the fact that for the first time the business voter has to claim his vote instead of the local authority putting him on the register, there was an onus on the Government to obtain all the publicity we could. I suggest that, from previous answers I have given, the Government have taken every practicable step in that direction. This was not the first reference to the matter on the B.B.C.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it suggested that business men are not intelligent enough to know their rights in this matter, and must depend on the B.B.C. to give them a special privilege, which is denied to others?

Mr. Morrison: There is the fear, I gather, that they may be somewhat apathetic, as electors of all classes quite commonly are. For the first time we


have, in this matter, got to the basis with which my hon. Friend is familiar, of contracting in instead of contracting out.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend understand that all the publicity that is given to the rights of business men to vote in their constituency, and in constituencies where they ought not to vote, will have no appreciable effect on the next General Election?

An Hon. Member: Then why worry?

Mr. Petherick: In view of the fact that Parliament has recently maintained the business vote, would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the question of approaching the B.B.C. again, in view of the fact that, so far, the announcement has only been made in the Parliamentary news, which is not necessarily listened to by everybody in the country who is entitled to this vote.

Mr. Morrison: I do not think I can very well add much more. I have no particular right to instruct the B.B.C; the Minister concerned with the B.B.C. is the Minister of Information.

Mr. Driberg: If the right hon. Gentleman is considering broadcast appeals to those who are backward in claiming their right to vote, will he bear in mind the deplorable fact that only six per cent, of the men of the Merchant Navy have bothered to register to vote at all?

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange for application forms for entry on the business premises register in a county division to be obtainable at borough and district council offices in the division, as well as at the office of the county council.

Mr. H. Morrison: The duty of dealing with business promises applications falls in most cases to the clerk of a borough or urban district council and, where it does, the application forms will be available in his office. Advertisements in the local press have made it clear from whom the forms are obtainable in each constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND (EDUCATION LEGISLATION)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the statement of the

Attorney-General in the Northern Ireland Parliament on 25th January, during the discussion on the Education Bill, that the proposed legislation, as well as the existing legislation on the subject since 1925, has not been in accordance with Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920; and if he has approached the representatives of the Northern Ireland Government on the subject of incorporating provisions for giving religious instruction in State-controlled, schools within school hours and the duties of teachers in connection with such instruction.

Mr. H. Morrison: My hon. Friend is no doubt referring to a statement made in a debate on a Paper on educational reconstruction, presented to the Parliament of Northern Ireland. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not intended by this legislation that there shall be denominational teaching in Protestant schools provided by the State? If that is carried through, will my right hon. Friend see that at least equal treatment is meted out to the Catholic half of the population?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is evidently under the illusion that Northern Ireland is a Crown Colony. It is a place with a Parliament, and this is within the competence of the Government of Northern Ireland.

Professor Savory: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the Attorney-General of the day certified that both those Acts, the Act of 1925 and the Act of 1930, were within the powers of the Government of Northern Ireland, and that that, legal advice was accepted by the Government of this country, especially by the Home Secretary?

Oral Answers to Questions — REMAND HOMES

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many remand homes there are in the counties of Essex, Middlesex, Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Warwickshire; and if he has done anything to find more remand homes.

Mr. H. Morrison: There are 24 remand homes in the six counties named. My Department has taken all possible steps to impress on local authorities the need for adequate remand home accommodation,


and continues to do so where necessary. As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on 7th December, the number of remand homes provided by local authorities has been more than doubled during the war.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a recent advertisement for staff at Marlesford Lodge Remand Home, for attendants capable of controlling difficult girls, offering wages non-resident 46s. plus 9s. bonus, and resident £92 plus £23 bonus; and whether he has approved these wages as adequate to attract women suitable for this specialised work.

Mr. Morrison: I have not seen a recent advertisement, but I am inquiring into the matter. As regards the general question of salary scales, I am setting up a Departmental Committee to review the question of the salaries and conditions of employment of staff employed both in approved schools and in remand homes.

Dr. Summerskill: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the difficulty of obtaining help in remand homes can, in no small measure, be attributed to the low wages offered in the past?

Mr. Morrison: That will be a relevant point for consideration by the Departmental Committee. I think my hon. Friend will agree that this is a move forward, to have the matter expeditiously examined.

Mr. Woodburn: Will my right hon. Friend consider having trained teachers in these homes, as the idleness that comes from having untrained teachers results in a great deal of mischief?

Mr. Morrison: It all depends on the nature of the work there is to be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON REMAND HOME (INQUIRY)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the transcription of the evidence at the Vick inquiry or place a copy in the Library and make it available to the Members.

Colonel Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department

whether he will accede to the request of the juvenile court magistrates for publication of the evidence in the remand home inquiry.

Mr. H. Morrison: The suggestions contained in these two Questions were put to me a fortnight ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) when I felt unable to follow the unusual course proposed. I have reconsidered the matter most carefully, and I have come to the same conclusion. If I thought that the evidence would reveal any remissness or failure on the part of anyone, including any official of the Home Office or the London County Council, which is not disclosed in the report, I should decide without hesitation that it is my duty in. the public interest to order publication. Quite apart from the confidence which must be placed in the judgment and impartiality of the two eminent persons who conducted the inquiry, I am satisfied that this consideration happily does not arise.
The main question at issue, as is made clear in the report, is one of opinion and is concerned with the degree of segregation which is necessary or desirable in the London remand homes, especially that for girls, under present war-time conditions. On this important question of policy it is evident that, so far from there being agreement, there has been misunderstanding and lack of adequate contact between the parties concerned. It is essential that this misunderstanding should be cleared up and that machinery for securing close co-operation between them should be put in motion. I believe that with the help of the London County Council and the justices on the juvenile court panel this object can be reached without delay. I shall make it my immediate duty to secure this result.
May I add that I greatly appreciate the valuable work which the justices in the London juvenile courts are doing and that it has always been the desire of my officers to give them the fullest possible help. I feel, too, that the London County Council would wish to do the same, and that, with the good will of all concerned, this inquiry will have achieved beneficial results.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said—that he thinks the evidence should not be published-—why cannot the public have an


opportunity of judging for themselves? May I ask him, in view of the great public concern, why he is preventing publication of this report and what he is afraid of?

Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, the last words of my hon. Friend are just the kind of thing I deprecate. I am not afraid of anything or anybody. The only way the public could judge whether the evidence should be published would be by publishing it, but that begs the whole question, because the public could not judge unless it read the many thousands of words contained in the evidence, and it certainly could not judge on such limited extracts as the newspapers would be capable of printing.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the strictures passed in the report on these distinguished magistrates, it would not be fair to them that the public should be allowed to read the evidence on which those strictures were based?

Mr. Morrison: Why should we be so partial about the magistrates? There are very severe strictures on the London County Council, as there are strictures on the Home Office, and, really, the inquiry was bound to start on the indictment so extensively published by the magistrates themselves. Therefore, the magistrates cannot grumble if the indictment they framed was the subject of examination by the Committee, and if the Committee made such comments upon it as they thought right.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the less party politics enter this particular arena the more chance there will be for the 150,000 children involved in the new inquiry?

Mr. Morrison: I could not agree more than I do with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PRESS INTERVIEWS)

Colonel Lyons: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider directing that in the public interest, the political heads of Government Departments, both civil and Service, alone give or authorise Press interviews or, in an emergency when Press interviews or explanations have to be

given by individual officers, that their names be not published.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): The best practice is that Ministers of the Crown should themselves expound all matters of Government policy, and that Press interviews by officials should only be given on Ministerial responsibility and after due authorisation by the political chief. Such expressions of opinion by officials would, usually, have regard to technical aspects only. Of course, in an emergency, exceptions may be made. The principle of Ministerial responsibility to Parliament is paramount.

Oral Answers to Questions — MONOPOLIES (WHITE PAPER)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister if he has considered the resolution adopted at the 1944 Trades Union Congress in which it was suggested that a full public inquiry should be made into cartels, trusts, monopolies and, in view of the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke and others, what action is to be taken; and will he have arrangements made for the Motion to be considered by the House.

[That this House is of the opinion that His Majesty's Government should submit a White Paper to the House describing the scope and pre-war effects of monopolies, cartels, combines, proprietary concerns, trading associations, and demands that legislative action should be taken as soon as possible so that the essential services operated by private concerns shall become socially owned concerns aiming at maximum efficiency, safeguarding the consumers' interests, providing for the full development of the resources of the British Commonwealth and working towards international economic co-operation.]

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I have been asked to reply. I regret that I cannot hold out any hope at present of facilities for a discussion of the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN WARFARE (INDISCRIMINATE BOMBING)

Captain Sir William Brass: asked the Prime Minister whether he will bear in mind when imposing peace terms upon Germany the use which has been made by


that country of deliberate indiscriminate bombing of the civilian population by means of the V-weapons, in order that Germany may never again be allowed to manufacture missiles to be used for this method of warfare.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether steps will not be taken, on the defeat of Germany, to consider the whole question of the limitation or abolition of aerial warfare?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I certainly do not think that the victorious Allies should deprive themselves of the defences which are possible from the air.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPIRE (POST-WAR MIGRATION)

Sir W. Brass: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a recent announcement in Australia to the effect that the Commonwealth aims to increase its population to 20,000,000; and, in view of the opportunities for settlement which exist in all the self-governing Dominions, if he will consider setting up a special Department with a Minister or Under-Secretary in charge to prepare plans in collaboration with the Dominion Governments for a properly worked out scheme of Empire settlement after the war.

The Prime Minister: I have seen reports of the speech in Australia to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The House has already been informed that the question of post-war migration has been taken up with Dominion Governments. As at present advised, I see no need for setting up a separate Department to deal with this important issue, but His Majesty's Government are always open to consider any additional machinery, should their consultations with Dominion Governments indicate that such machinery is required.

Sir W. Brass: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that plans are now being prepared for Empire settlement after the war between the Governments of the Dominions and the home Government?

The Prune Minister: I think the wording which I used covers that point. The matter is under discussion with the Dominion Governments. I do not, however, wish it to be supposed that we have any large reserve of man-power which we can spare from this Island, especially if we have succeeded in making it a home for all its people.

Miss Rathbone: In view of the impending steep decline in our own population, can we afford to consider schemes for exporting large numbers of our citizens, and should we not rather consider how we can encourage our own birth-rate?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in spite of his views about the shortage of man-power after the war, there will not be a demand in certain quarters for emigration? Is it not desirable that some machinery should be devised in order to organise that emigration so as to provide some measure of security for those who wish to go to the Dominions; and can he say whether the Dominions Office is now dealing with this matter and, if so, whether we can have a progress report?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree about a careful and refined organisation being prepared to facilitate the wishes which may be felt by people to go out into those great lands, and that is all being done. The question should be put to the Dominions Office on the point, if more detailed information is required.

Captain Duncan: Will the Prime Minister confirm what he said before, that there are too many Ministers already, and, that so far from increasing them, as suggested in the Question, their number should be reduced?

Mr. Edgar Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very serious mistakes made after the last war with regard to unlimited and unsponsored emigration from this country to the Dominions; and will he make the facts contained in his reply to-day known to those members of the Forces, of both sexes, who are very anxious to know the details of any Government emigration scheme at the end of the war?

Oral Answers to Questions — APPROVED SOCIETIES

Sir Adam Maitland: asked the Prime Minister if he will give time for a discussion of the Motion on the Order Paper standing in the names of the hon. Member for Faversham and 156 other hon. Members.

[That this House urges a reconsideration of the decision to abolish approved societies and is of opinion that their retention would assist the development and efficiency of the proposed scheme of social insurance, the existing system whereby benefits are paid in the homes of the people being appreciated.]

Mr. Eden: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. An opportunity for the discussion of this subject was- afforded and taken in the Debate on the White Paper on Social Insurance. The Government must now frame its legislative proposals.

Sir A. Maitland: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that there was very little time devoted to this particular aspect of the matter on that occasion, and is it not important, as it concerns the administration of this new scheme of national insurance? Will he have regard to the fact that 157 hon. Members have supported the Motion, and are desirous that there should be a full Debate?

Mr. Eden: I have noted the number of names. There was, of course, a two-day Debate on this general subject, though not on this particular aspect. What my hon. Friend is really asking for is a further Debate on the White Paper before the Government's legislative proposals come in. I think that would be wrong. I think we should frame those proposals and then the House will have ample opportunity for discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFI CATION ACT (EXPIRY)

Mr. Petherick: asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to continue in force the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1944, which expires on 5th March next.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, the Government have now decided that they do not propose to ask Parliament to continue further the House of Commons Disqualification (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1941, which has played such a useful

and convenient part in our affairs. That Act will, accordingly, expire on 6th March this year, and no further certificates can be issued thereafter. On the other hand, Members of this House who are at that date the holders of offices under the Crown which would otherwise disqualify them for membership of this House, will continue to enjoy the protection afforded by the Act of 1941 until the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, expires.
We have, at the same time, considered what would be the position of Members who still hold certificates under the Act of 1941 in the event of a dissolution taking place before the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act expires. We are advised that such Members, if they continue to hold their offices, would for the most part be precluded from seeking re-election under the terms of the Servants of the Crown (Parliamentary Candidature) Order, 1927. In the event therefore of a General Election it is proposed to advise His Majesty to amend the 1927 Order so as to permit those Members to seek re-election.

Sir Herbert Williams: Has this decision the effect of denying this House the opportunity of again considering whether it is desirable that Members of this House should serve for long periods overseas? Are we not being denied an opportunity of discussing the desirability of Members continuing to wander round the world?

The Prime Minister: Far from it. My hon. Friend is, I think, attaining all, or even more than he desires. The Act is going to disappear. It was a very great convenience in wartime, and I am much obliged to the House for giving me that facility, but with the change in our affairs which we may hope for in the future, such necessity will not occur. We can dispense with this and much other wartime machinery. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] As to Members being absent for a long time from their duties in this House, I have always been of opinion that that is a matter for the constituents and not for this House.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: Can my right hon. Friend say what are the factors governing the end of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act?

The Prime Minister: I hesitate to make anything like a legal pronounce-


ment upon these matters, but I should suppose that the circumstances would be a general consensus of opinion that the emergency had passed away.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is it not a fact that the definition given from time to time of the words "the end of the war" has been that it will be when, in the opinion of the Government, the emergency has in fact ended; does not the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, propose to continue almost indefinitely at the disposal of the Government the certificates which have already been issued; and does he appreciate the fact that these certificates are repugnant to the overwhelming majority of the Members of this House and that they ought to be withdrawn?

The Prime Minister: As I say, after 6th March there will be no power to issue new ones but I think it would be very unfair to remove the protection which they have given to the Members who have received these certificates suddenly in such a way as to disqualify them from conducting their political business as they think fit. The object is to facilitate such people coming up to stand for Parliament and that they should not be penalised in any way. As to the certificates being repugnant to the House, I obtained unanimous approval, or at any rate approval by an overwhelming majority, when the Bill was passed in 1941.

Oral Answers to Questions — EQUAL PAY (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Mrs. Tate: asked the Prime Minister whether the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Equal Pay specifically include the power to make recommendations.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Commission was required by its terms of reference to consider the social, economic and financial implications of the claim of equal pay for equal work and to report.

Mrs. Tate: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the House understood that, in the setting up of the Committee, it was implicit that there should be recommendations; and does he think that it is worthy of a Government led by a man as great as he is perpetually to try to hold back the tide of progress with these pebbles of prejudice?

The Prime Minister: I neither deserve the excessive praise nor the excessive blame in which my hon. Friend has enshrouded her supplementary question. I was asked, as a matter of fact, whether the terms of reference specifically include that power, and anyone who likes to read the terms of reference will see that they do not specifically include that power.

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that pebbles can never hold back tides?

Mrs. Tate: They can, if they are bound together.

Oral Answers to Questions — RELEASED BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX:

92. To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can give the most recent number of British prisoners of war who have been liberated by the Russian advance; where they now are being assembled; and whether all their names have been communicated to the next of kin.

At the end of Questions—

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The House will be interested to receive information with regard to prisoners of war recently in German hands, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the answer to Question 92.
Information has been received from the Soviet authorities that 2,661 British Commonwealth prisoners of war (of whom 70 are officers) recovered from German camps are on their way by rail to Odessa. A transit camp is under construction there for the accommodation of liberated prisoners of war. Any prisoners recovered will be assembled in this camp until ships arrive to bring them home. So far no list of names has been received. In accordance with the agreement recently concluded in the Crimea, the Soviet authorities are providing food, clothes and any necessary medical attention for our men. It is likely that some of the Work Detachments dependent on Stalags XXA, XXB, 344 and VIIIB have been overrun by the Soviet Forces but I have no details of any prisoners of war other than those I have mentioned. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT, such information as has become available about the transfer of British prisoners still in German hands.

Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of anxiety among the relatives of these men, will my hon. and learned Friend take steps to consult the Soviet authorities in this country to see whether the men's navies and units can be broadcast as early as possible in order to relieve this anxiety? At the same time, I assure my hon. and learned Friend that the people of this country will have full confidence that the Soviet authorities will look after these men.

Mr. Henderson: I can assure the House that His Majesty's Government are in close touch with the Soviet Government on the matter, and the necessary arrangements have been made on the point my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. Gallacher: Would not the Financial Secretary to the War Office consult with the Prime Minister and arrange for some of the Members of Parliament at present in the Soviet Union to pay a visit to Odessa and have a talk with the released prisoners?

Following is the information:

As regards the movements of camps in Eastern Germany, the present position, according to the latest information available, is as follows: Stalags XX A, XX B and II B are moving through the Province of Mecklenburg. Some are being moved by rail. From Stalag Luft III 2,000 British and American prisoners of war have been transferred to Stalag III A, at Luckenwalde, 2,000 to Marlag Milag Nord (near Hamburg), 2,000 to Stalag XIII C east of Frankfurt-on-Main, and 4,000 to Stalag VII A in Bavaria.

Prisoners of war from Stalags VIII A and VIII C are moving through Saxony. A number of prisoners unfit to travel are being transferred from Stalag VIII A by rail.

Some prisoners from Stalag Luft IV are reported to be at Usedom near Swinemunde on the Baltic.

Stalag Luft VII was reported to be near Spremberg from where the prisoners are to be transferred to the neighbourhood of Nuremberg and Moosburg in Bavaria.

Stalag VIII B is reported to be moving towards Aussig south of Dresden.

Stalag 344 is reported to be moving to Theresienstadt south of Dresden.

The final destination of the prisoners transferred from the above camps is not yet known.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. De la Bère: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether, in view of the fact that not a single question addressed to the Minister of Agriculture has been reached to-day, permission may be given for an extension of Question time, in order to deal with some of the agricultural matters contained in those questions?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order. It is very obvious indeed that with so many supplementary questions we cannot get any further. A little more restraint might be exercised in regard to supplementaries.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE AND HOURS OF SITTING

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he can tell us the Business for next week, and also whether he has any statement to make in regard to the future hours of sitting?

Mr. Eden: The Business for next week will be as follows:

On Tuesday and Wednesday, a Debate will take place on the Crimea Conference. The Debate will arise upon a Government Motion which will be in the following terms:
That this House approves the declaration of joint policy agreed to by the three Great Powers at the Crimea Conference and, in particular, welcomes their determination to maintain unity of action not only in achieving the final defeat of the common enemy, but, thereafter, in peace as in war.

On Thursday, it is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, 1945, and to consider Votes A and 1 and Air Supplementary Estimates, 1944, in Committee.

Friday (Ist Allotted Supply Day).—Committee stage of the Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments Vote on Account, 1945. A Debate will take place on the Finance Corporations.

As regards the hours of sitting, I informed the House at the beginning of the Session that the heavy legislative programme would make it necessary some time in the New Year to set up Standing Committees, and, in consequence, to alter the present hours of sitting of the House. We have already referred three Bills to


Standing Committees, and two Committees have now been constituted.

In order that hon. Members, and those whose duty it is to attend upon Parliament, can make their arrangements, it may be convenient if I warn the House now that we shall bring forward a Motion to provide that the House should meet at 2.30 p.m. and sit until 9.30 or 10 p.m. I should add that we had contemplated originally making this change on Tuesday, 6th March, but for certain reasons which have since arisen, I would now propose that the change of hours should operate as from Tuesday, 13th March. This Motion, of course, will be for discussion at some later time; I am only giving the House advance information.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement he has just made indicates that it is a considered decision of the Government, that the hours should be from 2.30? I was given to understand that the Government would propose 2 o'clock. If the Government are proposing 2.30, will the alternative proposal of 2 o'clock be left to a free vote of the House?

Mr. Eden: The proposal I have made as Leader of the House, not on, behalf of the Government. It will be for the House of Commons to decide its hours. The Government have considered the matter, and, on the whole, we thought that 2.30 would be more convenient for a number of reasons, not by any means exclusively concerned with Members' luncheon hours. There is also the question of the gap, I might mention, between the time when the sittings of the Committees—whose work has to be reported—will come to an end and when the sitting of the House itself begins, but these matters can, of course, be discussed.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I would like to be quite clear on this point. If it is not a Government Motion, but a Motion of the Leader of the House, will the Government Whips be put on in favour of the hour of 2.30, or will the decision between 2 and 2.30 be left to a free vote?

Mr. Eden: The Government Whips will not be put on; it will be left to a free vote. However, as Leader of the House, I would like to state my reasons why 2.30 is considered better.

Sir Percy Harris: Will the Leader of the House undertake to publish a White Paper giving the detailed declaration of the Crimea Conference? Would he further consider publishing a White Paper dealing with the resolutions of the Conference at Cairo?

Mr. Eden: As regards the Crimea Conference, it is already arranged, and I hope the White Paper will be in the hands of hon. Members to-day. I do not contemplate a White Paper on what happened in Egypt. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement on that.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great number of people want to take part in the Debate next week on Foreign Affairs; and in view of the importance of the issues and the desire of Members to express their views in that Debate, would he consider giving another day?

Mr. Eden: I have had no notice that there was this desire. It is obviously a matter that requires consideration. I cannot say that there will be another day but I am prepared to consider, in any event, giving extra time.

Mr. A. Bevan: Whilst the Government are, obviously, entitled to ask for a Vote of Confidence on this matter, and any other matter when they see fit, will they take into consideration that one part of the declaration of the Crimea Conference referred to certain private decisions, arrived at, necessarily, secretly; does the language of the Motion commit us to support matters which are hidden from our gaze?

Mr. Eden: No, certainly it does not. The terms are carefully drawn. The Motion makes it plain that it does not commit persons to anything except what is in the published declaration.

Lord Dunglass: May I reinforce the plea made by the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill) that there should be a third day for this great Debate, possibly the biggest Debate we have had since the war? It raises issues far bigger than the issue of Poland because, from the terms of the Motion which my right hon. Friend has read out, this would seem to be the basis of a series of future conferences and a


series of world agreements. I hope, therefore, that he will give very sympathetic consideration to granting an extra day.

Mr. Eden: The last thing the Government desire is to restrict this discussion in any way. We would like, naturally, the fullest discussion possible. As I say, I have not had notice of this proposal and perhaps I may be allowed to make a statement at the beginning of Business tomorrow.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I want to ask a question on another matter. There are two Motions on the Order Paper, each signed by approximately 100 Members, the first dealing with the question of the age-barred officers:
[That the case of the age-barred officers should be met, and that superannuation practice in the Civil Service should be so amended as to preclude such cases arising in the future.]
the other with the counting of temporary service for pension in the Civil Service:
[That the whole question of the counting of temporary service for Civil Service pensions should be referred to a Select Committee of the House.]
Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that we shall have time to discuss this question in the early future?

Mr. Eden: I shall certainly have to do a little more thinking about time as a result of what I have said just now. We could not undertake that next week.

Captain McEwen: Could my right hon. Friend give any assurance that this House will be given an opportunity of discussing the question of double summer-time before any attempt is made to re-impose it?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot give that undertaking to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Buchanan: Perhaps this question is not quite fair because the Motion was only put down yesterday, but may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware of a Motion signed by most of the Scottish Members raising a question on civil aviation affecting the future of Scotland?
[That, in the opinion of this House, it is in the interests of civil aviation that Prestwick airport, which has throughout the war become Britain's main trans-

oceanic airport, should continue as the principal international airport for the United Kingdom until a new airport has been completed in the London area, and should thereafter be maintained as second only in importance to the new London airport; and that immediate encouragement should be given to the conversion, production, assembly and operation of aircraft in Scotland.]
It is terribly important. If the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to reply today, I will ask next week whether he will give us a day to discuss this.

Mr. Eden: I am aware of the point my hon. Friend has mentioned, and I hope it may be possible to make some arrangement. I cannot say now, but if the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat his question next week I will see what can be done.

Sir Adam Maitland: May I ask my right hon. Friend, on another matter, if he will not close his mind to the possibility of a Debate on the Motion to which reference has already been made this morning?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has asked that once; he cannot ask the same question twice.

Mr. Gallacher: We were promised that we would have the Scottish Education Bill by the end of February; can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication of when we shall get this Bill, as we are now nearing the end of February?

Mr. Eden: I understand that the Bill is in an advanced stage and will be introduced very soon.

Mr. Buchanan: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that it is a Bill worthy of Scotland?

Mr. Stokes: Reverting to the question of the Debate next week, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if it is not found possible to have a third day, an extension for a limited period will not suffice, and that there should be a considerable extension of time?

Mr. Eden: I have already stated that I have listened to what has been said in the House, and the object of the Government is to give the House the fullest facilities possible.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: We have already spent a quarter of an hour on these questions. We must get on to the next Business.

HANSARD, HOUSE OF COMMONS (BOUND VOLUMES)

Mr. Speaker: I am glad to inform the House that the Vote Office will resume daily delivery of the Votes and Proceedings as from Tuesday, 27th February, to Members who reside within a radius of three miles of the House. I have also been into the question of the free issue of bound volumes of HANSARD to Members, and this matter has been thoroughly investigated by the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports. They have advised unanimously that this is not possible at present, though the question might be re-examined at the beginning of next Session. I agree with that decision and so do not feel justified at present in authorising the free issue of bound volumes of HANSARD to Members.

Mr. A. Bevan: Do you realise, Sir, may I ask respectfully, that the decision not to issue the bound volumes free will be regretted in many parts of the House? Members of the other place have enjoyed this privilege right throughout the war. Well-to-do Members of this House are able to afford to buy the bound volumes, and this decision will bear very hardly upon the poorer Members, who have not secretaries, who have not research organisations and who have to fumble their way through dozens of HANSARDS in order to find what they are seeking, and that is a most unfair imposition upon hon. Members trying to do their duty in very difficult circumstances.

Mr. Buchanan: On the question of the bound volumes of HANSARD, I recognise your position, Mr. Speaker—that you have received a unanimous recommendation from a Committee and that it would be most difficult to go against such a recommendation. Everybody Must recognise that position, but may I put this print before you before the decision is acted upon—that you, or at least someone, might receive a deputation from those of us who wish to put forward other reasons in support of a free issue? I think I am a, good House of Commons man, and I find that the bound volumes are essential to me. I cannot afford to buy them. If I were rich I would get

them. I beg of you, Sir, to look at this matter again, because we find that the bound volumes are an essential and integral part of our equipment for our work here. In view of the Government's decision to alter the hours of sitting and to set up Standing Committees, the volumes become in some ways even more important, because the Bills take on a Committee character. Again I would ask you, Sir, to receive a deputation or to ask the Committee, before next Session, to look at the question again and grant Members of the House of Commons reasonable facilities to carry on their work.

Mr. Woodburn: While endorsing what the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has said, might I suggest that, in the event of its not being possible to issue free bound volumes, some facilities might be given to hon. Members to bind the daily copies of HANSARD?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Montague: May I suggest that the limit of three miles for the daily delivery of the Votes and Proceedings is very discriminatory? A large number of Members who reside in London live outside the three miles radius from this House.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is a question of getting the labour.

Mr. Buchanan: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if you will consider what I said about receiving representations from some of us?

Mr. Speaker: It might be of value to Members before I receive a deputation if they could see the Report of the Committee. Perhaps the Chairman of the Committee would lay before the House its evidence, and then Members could see it and judge the position.

Mr. Buchanan: Thank you very much.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE

First Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 45].

STANDING COMMITTEE A

In pursuance of Standing Order No. 80 (4), Mr. SPEAKER has nominated Sir Cyril Entwistle Chairman of Standing Committee A, in respect of the Water Bill.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL

Resolutions reported from the Chairmen's Panel:
(1) That where, on two successive sittings of a Standing Committee called for the consideration of a particular Bill, the Committee has to be adjourned by reason of the absence of a quorum within the first 20 minutes of the time for which the said Committee was summoned, Chairman do instruct the Clerk to place the particular Bill at the bottom of the list of Bills then waiting consideration of that Committee, and that the Committee shall forthwith be convened to consider the other Bill or Bills then waiting.
(2) That it is the undoubted and established right of the Chairman who is appointed to a Standing Committee for the consideration of a particular Bill to name the day and hour on which the consideration of the Bill shall begin.
(3) That if, during the consideration of a Bill before one of the Standing Committees, it shall appear that the business would be expedited by postponing the further consideration of the Bill in hand until the Bill next on the list has been reported, and if the Member in charge of the Bill rises and makes a Motion to that effect, the Chairman will be in Order in proposing such a Question.

Report to lie upon the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Eden.]

Orders of the Day — LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

12.27 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill is one which, we submit, will give fairer compensation to those injured in road and other accidents. It deals with the case where one person sues another for damages and the damage has been caused partly by the fault of the person and partly by the fault of the other. At the present time if the person who sues has contributed to the accident by his own default, he fails and recovers nothing, even though his negligence may be very small, and the negligence of the other person very great. That is the rule of law which is applicable to accidents on land. On the other hand, if there is a collision at sea between two ships, and the owner of one claims damages from the owner of the other, the second owner will not escape liability because the first ship was also negligent. If the true position is that both ships are to blame, the court decides what is the proportion of fault; it fixes the respective fractions, adds the damages together, and divides them in the due proportions. This maritime rule finds statutory expression in the Maritime Conventions Act, 1911. So we have the position that whereas on land a person who has contributed to causing an accident by his negligence fails utterly, at sea a ship in the same position gets the proper proportion of the damage. The origin of that I shall not go into in detail. It is wrapped up in the history of our law, and arises from the fact that our law developed from forms of action, rather than from a consideration of the remedies for wrong.
Let me take a simple case, such as probably occurs every day, where a woman stepping off the kerb without looking is


knocked down by a motor car whose driver comes along either driving too fast or failing to keep a proper look-out, or both. In those circumstances to-day, when the negligence is contemporaneous on both sides, the woman entirely fails to recover damages. That is the position with which this Bill deals and, generally, the intention and working out of the Bill is to apply the Admiralty rule, which I have described, to accidents on land, and thus give the injured plaintiff the right to a proportion of the damages that he—and the same applies to a woman—would have recovered had he been entirely free from blame according to the amount of blame that is attributable to him. I think the House ought to have in mind that the rule of law of which I am speaking was referred to a Standing Committee which was in operation, the Law Revision Committee, presided over by Lord Wright, and representative of judges, counsel, solicitors and teachers of law. In their eighth report the Committee unanimously recommended that this alteration, which is now before the House, should be made. The Government agree with, and have expedited, their report, and so this Bill comes before the House. My hon. Friends who are in the legal profession will know that the suggestion that the existing rule had its defects has been made time after time. It goes back a long time, to the famous judgment of Lord Lindley in the Bernina case, and, even beyond that, it is one on which comment has been made. Therefore, the Government are supported by judicial suggestions, by recommendations of the Committee, to which I have just referred, and, I suggest, by commonsense.
Before dealing with the Bill generally I want to refer to one aspect of it which is dear to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). It is a point which he brought up on another Measure, and that Measure, in fact, is the next Order on the Paper to-day. It concerns the position of the cyclist whose rear lamp has gone out. As has been made very clear by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, it is not, ipso facto, decisive of negligence, that a cyclist's rear lamp has gone out. That has to be taken into account with the general circumstances of the case.

Sir Herbert Williams: In this Bill the word "fault" occurs, and a fault is defined as a breach of statutory duty. If one's lamp is out, surely one has committeed a breach of statutory duty?

The Solicitor-General: This Bill deals with actionable fault, that is, fault on which a cause of action may be based, and that is why I wanted to make it clear to my hon. Friend that a breach of a statutory duty which is enjoined on the whole community is not necessarily an actionable fault. I ask my hon. Friend to take it from me, at this stage, that a fault is not necessarily a matter on which an action can be brought, or on which a plea of statutory negligence can be raised. It may be evidence of negligence, or it may not. Assuming that it is, let us suppose that my hon. Friend has said, "I know my lamp is out, I know that I am going along shady lanes near Croydon, where my bicycle will fade into the trees, but I am not going to trouble to put on my rear light." Then, it might well be that a jury of his fellow-countrymen would say that he was guilty of negligence. Even so, my hon. Friend would be in a favourable position under this Bill, because another jury, when he was bringing an action for those injuries which we should all regret so much, might say that the injuries were caused only as to 10 per cent. by the fact that my hon. Friend refused to have a rear light, and as to 90 per cent. by the fact that the motorist overtaking him was not able to pull up within the range of his lights. My hon. Friend would not get 100 per cent. of the enormous damages which his personality would command, but would get 90 per cent., and so leave the court quite happy. I want the House to appreciate that, in those tragic circumstances, the position of my hon. Friend would be improved from the point of getting nothing at all, to getting 90 per cent, of his damages.
The gist of the Bill is in Clause 1 (1), and I commend it to the House as stating quite clearly, in language, on which no words of mine could improve, the principle that:
Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recover-


able in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage.
A later provision states that if there is a jury it should deal with both questions. The other Sub-sections apply that to special points, with which I do not think I need detain the House. I feel I ought to say a few words about Clause 2, which deals with a position which at first sight would seem rather extraordinary. It says:
This Act shall not apply to any claim by a workman or his personal representative or dependant against his employer in respect of damage caused by accident arising out of and in the course of the workman's employment or by any industrial disease, or to any claim by an employer or his dependant against any workman employed by him or against the workman's personal representative in respect of damage caused partly by the fault of the workman arising out of and in the course of his employment.
(2) Where a workman or his personal representative or dependant has recovered compensation under the workman's compensation Acts.…
If that were the whole story, I should not ask the House to tolerate it for one moment. But the position is this: At the present moment, as my hon. Friends are aware, we are considering industrial injury insurance, which was indicated in Part II of the White Paper on this subject. I see a number of my hon. Friends who took part in the Debate on that White Paper are in their places and they will have the matter well in mind. One feature of the present Workmen's Compensation Acts, which is still under consideration, is the question of the alternative remedy under Section 29. My hon. Friends know that a workman can take common law proceedings against his employer for personal negligence or default under that Section, instead of going for his compensation. If he fails in his action at common law, he can ask the court that is dealing with it to assess the compensation, subject to a provision as to costs. That is the present position. The Home Secretary referred the question of the alternative remedy to a strong Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Walter Monckton, and containing as one of its members my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) who has great experience in workmen's compensation matters. When this Bill came up my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor decided that the best course would be to ask this Committee if they

would issue an interim report dealing with this problem. They were good enough to do so and have issued their report, which is Command Paper 6580. That Committee unanimously reported that the provisions of this Bill should not apply to actions brought by a workman against his employer for accidents occurring in the course of and arising out of his employment. Perhaps I may summarise the reasons in as non-technical language as I can, although I am willing to answer any technical point at a convenient time—

Mr. Silverman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not intending to convey to the House that the interim report rejected the application of this principle to the motorist. As I understand it, they said that they should leave the matter alone for the time being.

The Solicitor-General: That is what I was going to convey to the House. That is the sole reason why I am commending Clause 2 (1) to the House. That Committee said: "Do not let us interfere with this for the moment, until we have considered the general question of alternative remedies." It is simply a temporary provision. I know that the hon. Member is particularly versed in these matters, but perhaps I might indicate the sort of point which weighed with that Committee. One may get four positions. In the first case, if this was to apply to an action brought by a workman against his employer, the damages which he would get if he were not negligent himself, may be £250. The workman may be 80 per cent. to blame, and the damages may be cut to £50, which might be of substantially less value to him than the weekly compensation. On the other hand I quite agree—and I concede this point—that there will be cases, even where the damages are cut, which will be more than the compensation. You will also get this application. The employer will say, "The accident was not my fault. It was the fault of the plaintiff, of A.B. and of C.D. who are other workers, and with regard to whom the defence of common employment arises." Even if that defence does not succeed, there will be the question, if this were to apply, of the court apportioning the damages between the plaintiff, between the next workman A.B. and the next workman C.D., and the employer, and the amount he would get from the employer may be less than compensation.

Mr. Silverman: Is not that argument based on a misreading of Clause 1? As I read the Clause all that happens is that the plaintiff's damages are reduced according to the court's assessment of the plaintiff's own contributory negligence. It does not say that his damages are to be apportioned among a number of other people who are held to blame.

The Solicitor-General: I think it is very difficult. The view which is put forward in the report, and which I have been putting to the House, is, at any rate, an arguable view, that in reducing the damages, the court might take that into consideration although, obviously, what the hon. Member has said is deserving of great consideration in the wording of the Act. That is one of the other matters which have to be considered.
The fourth point is that the employer might counter-claim. It we take a case where the workman's damages would have been £1,000 had he not been negligent, and where in fact the explosion in which he was interested has done £3,000 damage to the employer, and the court takes the view that the blame is fifty-fifty, the effect would be, if the workman brought his claim, that the employer would have a counter-claim against him for £1,000. All these difficulties show that the matter wants very serious consideration in the light of what the Committee ultimately decide as to the right view on the retention or development or restriction of alternative remedies. It wants to be reviewed in the light of the Committee's final report, and the Government want to adopt their policy with the whole matter in mind. Therefore, as a temporary measure, until we see what the final view is, we suggest that it should not apply to that class of case. We do not suggest that it should not apply to a case where a workman can bring an action against a third party. We do not suggest that it should not apply to a case where an employer pays the workman the full compensation, as he must do under the Act, and then himself takes a remedy against a third person, under which he wilt get a proportion of the damages in a case where the workman has himself been negligent. In that case, the workman would get the full compensation from his employer, and the employer can get part of it back.

Sir H. Williams: Will my hon. and learned Friend say something about Clause 1 (3)?

The Solicitor-General: The object of that subsection is that, where there are two or more defendants, you will have to deduct from the damages which would have been awarded to the claimant, the amount which you should deduct because of his own negligence. Then he will have exactly the same rights against the two defendants and they will have their rights of contribution, subject, of course, to the degree of negligence which each one of them has shown. Some nine years ago we changed the other branch of the same aspect of the law. Before that, one wrong-doer could not recover from another. We have to fit this into the position which obtains under that Act.

12.50 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I should like, on behalf of my hon. Friends to welcome the Bill generally, and to offer congratulations on the improved drafting which it shows. It is fairly easy to read, not only by people concerned with the law but by non-technical persons. I hope that this is a sign of a general improvement in the drafting of Bills. The Bill sets out to, remove an injustice which has grown and is affecting more and more people, as the complexity of civilised life and the development of modern machinery, power and plant have extended. This development has meant that more and more people have to use more and more skill and care in the use of modern appliances, and in adapting themselves generally to modern life, such as moving about in congested towns where there is a large amount of traffic. This need for skill and care has, in turn, increased the number of occasions on which people suffer injury through the negligence of other persons, equally those on which both parties to an occurrence may be negligent. The result has been a considerable growth in the amount of litigation arising out of matters of negligence. Indeed at some periods during the war almost the only cases which came before the law courts arose out of negligence. Therefore the matter has assumed very great proportion.
In these cases the existing law has been shown to be anomalous, and it has worked harshly in a great many cases. The Solicitor-General has explained the general purpose of the Bill, which arises out of a


report by the Law Revision Committee in 1939, and but for the war one assumes it would have been introduced earlier. It brings the law into conformity with that at present in force relating to accidents at sea, under the Maritime Conventions Act, 1911, which, on the whole, has worked quite well. But the introduction of this Measure will not be free from some difficulties. It will be somewhat difficult, in ordinary cases, to assess the exact degree of negligence of the respective parties, and the exact amount of compensation to which each is entitled. It is done in the case of accidents at sea, but they are much bigger matters, and probably the records are better kept. There will be much less reliance in those cases on oral evidence, and on the recollection of witnesses. In the cases with which this Bill sets out to deal, judges and juries will have to depend almost entirely on what witnesses have seen, and on their recollection many months after the event, and it will be a matter of some difficulty for judges and juries to exercise their judgment fairly in assessing negligence. Nevertheless, with that difficulty in mind, I think the position under the Bill will be preferable to the present position, where a person may be deprived of all compensation merely because he has been, in part, responsible for an accident.
There is another matter, which perhaps could not be dealt with in the Bill but which will play an important part in litigation dealing with accidents. That is the question of costs, which plays an even greater part towards the end of proceedings, than the amount of damages. It is not infrequently the case that the cost of recovering £250 may on both sides amount to £300 or £400, and a person may win his action and lose it at the same time, because the costs that he has to pay will exceed the damages that he will recover. That illustrates the need for serious consideration of the question of costs, particularly in relation to accidents of this sort. I think that the Law Revision Committee might have directed its attention to ensuring that the question is dealt with, and that costs should be reduced primarily if possiblet. The question will loom very large and judges will have to give it fair and serious consideration so as not to penalise litigants.
The real bone of contention is Clause 2, which, admittedly, carries out the

unanimous recommendations of the interim report of the Departmental Committee. The Lord Chancellor, in introducing the Bill, said that one reason for accepting this recommendation was that the Government are considering proposals for a new scheme of workmen's compensation and, until that was enacted, it would be better to leave the law of workmen's compensation as it is. The hon. and learned Gentleman has emphasised the fact that it is intended to exclude disputes arising between employers and workmen as a temporary measure. There is nothing in the Bill which implies that it is temporary. It excludes that kind of dispute permanently. I do not know whether it would have been possible to put in words indicating that there was a definite intention to review the whole matter. In another Measure, words were inserted stating that, for a certain period only, such disputes were excluded from the purview of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman might consider whether it would be possible to introduce words of that sort indicating that the exclusion is intended to be temporary.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has given some reasons why, in his judgment, it is wise to exclude disputes arising between workmen and employers temporarily, though some of the reasons that he gave would justify their permanent exclusion, because he suggested that in many cases it would be to the interest of the worker to be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. But I think he overlooked the fact that a workman always has the option of taking proceedings at common law for a statutory breach of duty. He knows that he has the alternative remedy of workmen's compensation. He will not, presumably, embark on litigation, unless he is apprised that he has a reasonable chance of success, and the probabilities are that in the majority of cases he will do better at common law than he would have done under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman took the case of a person who could get 50 per cent. of £500, but we know of cases where a workman has been able to recover very large sums at common law, running into many thousands of pounds in the case of very serious injury, and, even in such cases, where there had been 25 per cent. or even 50 per cent. of negligence on the part of the worker, and he was awarded half the


amount of the total damage, he would still have recovered considerably more than the maximum under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In these cases there is the hardship on the workman of being deprived of the opportunity of taking proceedings to secure benefits under this Bill.
May I say that this consideration was not absent from the minds of the Committee in their interim report, because they recognised in paragraph 5 of their Report that there would be cases under the proposed new rules in which damages awarded to the negligent workman against his negligent employer would exceed that compensation to which that workman would be entitled under the Workmen's Compensation Act. They say:
In this case, an alteration in the law of contributory negligence would vary to the disadvantage of the employer and therefore to the advantage of the workman. Whether it is reasonable to impose this additional burden upon the employer, is another question which, in our opinion, requires careful consideration.
I hope that this was not the reason for excluding workmen from the benefit of this Bill. The very fact that it would impose an additional burden on the employer, is an indication that the workman is being deprived of some benefit, and I hope that this question will receive further consideration.
One of the reasons given for excluding workmen from the provisions of the Bill, is the fact that a man might by reason of his own negligence recover a relatively small sum less than he would have recovered under the Workmen's Compensation Act. But he then would have elected his remedy. If he loses his case, he still has his chance under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I should have thought that the problem could be met by still giving the workman his option under Section 29 of the Act, by amending that Section so as to give him the chance of recovering the balance of his compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman could draft proposals to alter the law if he so desired. Clause 2 is really the only one which is controversial, and it is one which I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will look into again. There will, however, be other opportunities for discussing the effect of Clause 2. I know that it can be said that the two members of the Committee most concerned with workmen's compensation on behalf of the

workmen, attached their names to the unanimous report. While one must give proper weight to that fact, I am not at all certain that they are very dogmatic about the matter, and I imagine they would have no difficulty if this House which, of course, has the last word, decided that Clause 2 should go. It is a matter which requires very careful consideration, and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will take account of what I have said, and what, I am sure, some of my hon. Friends are going to say about the matter, to see whether we could not put a term on the exclusion, or, alternatively, amend Section 29 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, or, perhaps better still, bring the workmen in to the benefits of this Measure.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: This is the sort of occasion on which large numbers of Members retire to the Smoking-room and watching the tape machine say, "Those lawyers are at it again." It is just as well that we are, because this is a Measure which it is proper should be introduced, and it has, I think, two great merits. One is that it will remove an injustice which has existed far too long, and has deprived people who have suffered injury through perhaps only a small fault of the chance of recovering any damages whatever. Its second merit is, as I think the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) has mentioned, that it is well-drafted. It is the first time, I think, that a Bill dealing with a legal matter has been put in the most simple and everyday language. I think its administration will lead to certain difficulties and one of them was stressed by the hon. Member for Peckham. As I understand it, it is not the degree of the claimant's negligence which will reduce his damage; it is the extent to which that neglect was contributory to the incident giving rise to the damage. A very small act of negligence might be the determining factor, which is virtually the sole cause of the accident, and it is not always easy to determine exactly the incidence of that, but I think there will undoubtedly be a difficulty in determining whether a small act of negligence is such that it contributed entirely, or almost entirely, to the incident.
While I am commenting on what the hon. Member for Peckham said, I would like to endorse his remark about costs. As we know, these are very substantial items in many of the actions of this kind


which come before the court. I should think it would be fairly simple to insert in this Bill a Clause to the effect that the costs should be apportioned in the same way as the damage. The Bill provides for the assessment of the maximum damage which the claimant can be awarded; therefore, it is easy to arrive at an apportionment between the total liability or the partial liability which falls upon the defendant, and it should not be difficult to put in a Clause to the effect that the costs should be in the same proportion.
The matter of Clause 2 does, I think, give rise to some misgiving. I think it probable that the way the Bill has been drafted to exclude the claims referred to, is the only course that could be taken, because the difficulties seemed to be great and nobody seemed able to resolve them. That I think is the real reason for the matter being dealt with in that way. But there are certain re-assurances that could be given about the Clause as it stands at the moment. Of course, so far as the claims under the Workmens Compensation Act are concerned—it is nearly six years since I had anything to do with them—my recollection is that the contributory negligence of the workman, if not wilful, was not in issue in claims under the Act, it is connected with statutory duty. So far as claims based on breach of statutory duty are concerned it only becomes an issue in some cases' and there is the difficult question of whether the duty was created for the protection of the particular person affected. It is a matter of some complication and probably the Floor of this House is not the most appropriate place for arguing its effect. There certainly are many cases in which, where the claim is based on statutory duty, contributory negligence of the workman is not material. Obviously, these cases will not be affected by this Clause.
I think we must await the final report of Sir Walter Monckton's Committee and I feel sure that the House will get certain reassurances from that Committee, because clearly a matter of this kind could not be in better hands. The total effect of this Bill will be that a number of people who suffer injuries and who have, as the law stood previously, been deprived of recovering the damage will now have that injustice removed and, I think it is one which will meet with a welcome from the whole House.

1.12 p.m.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I join with other hon. Members in welcoming the major provision of this Bill, a provision which secures that where damage has been caused by the fault of two persons, they shall bear responsibility for that in the same proportion as their fault. This doctrine of contributory negligence I part with, I confess, with little regret. All of us who are connected with the law spend a considerable amount of our studies in trying to observe these principles, and still more in trying to learn the exceptions and qualifications introduced by a series of cases, commencing with the famous donkey case of Davies v. Mann concerned with the question of opportunity. Questions of the cause approximate, of causa causans, of causa sine qua non—they will all go from our law books, and will be removed from our examination of papers, in so far as they qualify that doctrine of contributory negligence.
I want rather to stress the importance of the problem which arises under Clause 2. It is true that we are considering this provision as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, in the light of the possibility of a complete and early overhaul of the whole system of industrial insurance. Therefore, we should perhaps refrain from taking steps that we would otherwise think necessary, if we were legislating for an indefinite period of time. At the same time, it is right that we should consider this provision in Clause 2 on its own merits. I find myself differing from many of my colleagues in that I think that even on merits, it would be necessary to include such a provision as we have in Clause 2 exempting an action by a workman for damages arising out of and in the course of his employment from the provisions of the general rule. The Solicitor-General pointed out, as has been pointed out in the interim report of the Monckton Committee, that one of the consequences of applying the rule in Clause 1 to an action by a workman against his employer might well be to give the workman a very small sum of damages. By reason of that fact, under the terms of Section 29 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, he is disentitled from seeking any alternative remedy under the Workmen's Compensation Act, because the conditions of Section 29 are that the workman's action shall have been


dismissed, whereas if he recovered any damages, however small and insignificant, it will not have been dismissed.
It is suggested that some alternative can still remain. I will consider that in a moment, but the question of getting a small amount of damages is really present in most of these cases, because ex hypothesi we are dealing with cases where damage is going to be divided, those cases in which, on the very basis that we are considering, the workman is not going to recover the whole of the damage that he has suffered. The Solicitor-General pointed out certain other risks. One was the risk that the employer, the defendant, might bring into the proceedings some of the plaintiff's fellow workmen and that, whatever judgment might be recovered by the plaintiff workman, he might find that his recourse might only be to a small extent against the employer and that he would have to recover the remainder, if he could, from some of his fellow workmen. There is also the danger that a counter-claim by an employer in respect of damage to the machinery involved might even swamp a considerable judgment in favour of the workmen. These seem to me to be good grounds for accepting the principle contained in Clause 2, but there is this further point.
There has been a good deal of discussion about giving the workman an option. It is very difficult to understand where the option can come in. Under the existing law it is not really an option. The workman has taken proceedings at Common Law, he has failed, and he then transfers his claim under workmen's compensation. It is now proposed that somehow he should be given some choice and that he should be protected against the case where the damages perhaps will not be as satisfactory to him as a claim under workmen's compensation. By what do we balance the one against the other? He has, say, recovered a judgment for £200. What is to happen if he wants an alternative? Somehow or other, that judgment has got to be suspended and separate proceedings have to be instituted, and perhaps decided by the same court, in order that the rate of compensation to which he is entitled shall be assessed. How does the option come to be exercised? How is it possible for a workman to balance a cash claim of £200 against a workmen's compensation rate of £2 a week? In the one case it is a definite

sum of money. In the other he cannot possibly tell for how long he may be entitled to that rate of compensation. A great many factors come in from time to time to affect the amount which he may get. Improvement in his health, conditions of the labour market, and other considerations come in to affect the amount. How is a workman to exercise effectively an option between a fixed sum of money and a weekly rate which may be varied and changed at any time and the duration of which he does not know?

Mr. S. O. Davies: Are not these possibilities weighed up in thousands of cases now? A workman in receipt of weekly compensation payments considers the possibility of commuting them for a lump sum. There is, therefore, nothing new in it.

Mr. Hughes: I and many of my hon. Friend's are familiar with the commutation of weekly payments, but, broadly speaking, those cases do not arise until you have got fixed, settled conditions and you can, with some degree of certainty, prognosticate. In my experience that does not happen until a pretty advanced stage.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. and learned Friend will realise that it does not only arise then. It arises every time a man decides whether he will issue a writ for common law damages or rely on the workmen's compensation remedy.

Mr. Hughes: I am afraid that I follow that argument with considerable difficulty. It is true that he has exercised some form of option to accept, he does not know what, when he starts common law proceedings. He does not know what he is going to recover. He does know what his maximum rate of compensation is under workmen's compensation, assuming he is entitled to it, but he does not know how long it will run. When he starts a common law action, he does not know what he is going to recover, and he will not start it unless he hopes to recover something far more substantial than workmen's compensation. That is obvious, but there is in such a case none of the balance which it is suggested can be made if some form of amendment is devised so as to give a workman who has recovered judgment the power to go on to have his compensation assessed, and then to balance a fixed sum with a weekly sum for an indeterminate


period. I suggest that the only real solution of this difficulty is to be found in a complete overhaul of industrial insurance which the Government have been contemplating. We have to await the scheme which they will suggest, and, in the meantime, I think the House would be well advised to accept Clause 2 as it stands. I welcome the Bill.

1.25 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I want to add a word of commendation and gratitude for this long-delayed reform, now introduced to us from another place, Those of us who have had some experience of Admiralty, realise how easy it was to work this system. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was wrong in saying that there would be tremendous difficulties. I should have thought that the difficulties of assessing the amount of contributory negligence as between ship A and ship B were much greater than those of deciding as between two motor cars. I should think that this will work quite easily and to the benefit of everybody. I am glad that the question of costs has not been introduced into this reform. It is right that costs have not been referred to in this Bill, but are to be dealt with in the way in which costs are dealt with already.
The only controversial point is Clause 2. If the pledge had not been given by the Solicitor-General, and if we had not thought it high time that we had a new Clause dealing with the law as between employer and employee, there would be no justification for this Clause. I entirely disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes), and I am sorry to disappoint him, in his optimistic thought that we shall no longer have to remember the doctrine of contributory negligence. We shall have to go on remembering it, for it becomes more and more important and it will have to be considered with more care than ever before. I am afraid that young students will still have to sit for examinations, in which they will have to distinguish between causa causans and all the other matters, we have had to consider in the past.

Mr. Hughes: I should not like it to go out on the records that I was quite as ignorant as my hon. and learned Friend appears to make me. I said what I did

only in relation to the qualifying cases such as Davies v. Mann.

Mr. Davies: All that the court will have to say will be that the mere fact that the plaintiff has been guilty of contributory negligence, will not deprive him of his cause of action against the defendant. He will still have to prove that the defendant has been negligent, and the judge, or the judge and jury, will have to decide the degree of negligence between the two, which contributed to the accident. If one were applying this to the workman, it would put the workman and his advisers in a much more comfortable position within this Bill than he is in at the present time. The workman goes to see his legal adviser, who says to him, "You can, of course, start proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The question whether you have been negligent or not does not arise; you will get your compensation. Contributory negligence is excluded from workmen's compensation, but you will get only so much. The damages you seem to have suffered from your accident are so great, that the amount of compensation you will get under workman's compensation is only part of what you would get if you could bring your case at common law. Let us consider the facts of your case. I am sorry that I can see some evidence that you yourself were contributory to this accident and were negligent. I do not think we can run the risk of bringing an action on your behalf at common law, or under other Acts. I advise you, therefore, to go just for workman's compensation." Now he will be able to say, "Fortunately we have passed a new Act of Parliament, and, although you have been negligent, and although it may be possible that that contributed to the accident, that will not prevent you bringing an action against the defendant for damages".
That makes a great deal of difference. The Government have rightly excluded the relationship between employer and employee from the Bill, only for the reason that the whole thing ought to be brought forward as a complete code in itself, in which they can consider the effect of the law generally, as it stands. I would ask that this Clause should be excluded if I did not feel that there has been a solemn pledge by the Solicitor-General that this code will soon be introduced. If we exclude the Clause, that


might be used against us, afterwards as a reason why the matter could be further delayed. They would say: "We need not be hurried". The Government have told us definitely that the workman will not get the benefit of this Clause. We can use that as an argument to insist upon the code being brought forward as early as possible.
For that reason I commend the Bill. This is another example of the excellent work being done by the Law Revision Committee. We have altered the law in a number of directions already, particularly with regard to the distressing judgments which, because they were uttered some too years ago and have been allowed to remain, have been followed since, of necessity, by the judges, even though all knew that they offended against common sense. I wish to thank that Committee for the excellent work that they are doing.

1.32 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The few words which I have to say relate only to Clause 2. I hesitate to say anything in the conflict between the hon. and learned Gentlemen who have preceded me. I want to look at this matter in its political context. In the Beveridge Report there was a proposal to abolish the common law rights of the workman, but, in our view, the common law rights of the workman are the only penalty on the bad employer. When the Government issued their White Paper they indicated that this question was being referred to the Monckton Committee, and from what we have gathered from various sources we are of the opinion that it is the view of the Government that the workman ought not to have common law rights under the new industrial insurance proposals. If we can be told that that is not the intention, may I ask why the matter was referred to the Monckton Committee?
In their first interim report the Committee made the proposal to exclude the workman from these traditional common law rights. That shows the political trend. One is sure that the Industrial Injury Insurance Bill will reach the Statute Book this year, next year, or the year after and, when it does reach there, it will only be operated when Part I of the White Paper, the security scheme, becomes operative. Therefore, we have before us a long prospect in which the workman will be treated as an Ishmaelite, as com-

pared with other citizens. Not one Member who has spoken has condemned the proposals in the Bill, which has been generally welcomed. If those rights are to be given to the ordinary citizen, why not to the workman? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. M. Hughes) attempted to justify what the Bill proposes and I was very interested to hear him say that the workman could not be safeguarded against a lesser amount in compensation. I would refer him to the Monckton Committee's report which says, on page 4, paragraph 4:
The alterations in the law of contributory negligence would, in this respect, be disadvantageous to the workman. Doubtless this disadvantage could be removed by amending Section 29 so as to give an option to the workman, after damages have been assessed, either to accept the damages or to require the court to award compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts.
The Monckton Committee, upon whose report my hon. and learned Friend based his remarks to-day, said that the remedy which my hon. and learned Friend said does not exist can be provided. It would be as easy to provide that remedy in the Bill, as to exclude the workman from these provisions. Why has the workman been excluded? I will finish my quotation by reading further in that paragraph:
But, whether it would be reasonable in the employers' interests or desirable in the public interest, to confer this new option on the workman are questions upon which opinions might easily differ.
Therefore, it is not done out of regard for the workman. The Monckton Committee does not question that it would be to the advantage of the workman to be brought within the scope of the Bill, but the only reason why he is not given the benefit which other citizens will get is, they say, because it is not in the employers' interests. It does seem to me, when one bears in mind the traditional attitude of the Home Office on this question, the recommendation of the Beveridge Report, and the hesitation of die Government themselves in their White Paper, that we are steadily being led on to a position which, in the new political circumstances, might offer the opportunity of completely cancelling the workman's common law rights.
That is the danger. I speak after consultation with the Miners' Federation this morning on this point. They have the greatest apprehension as to the tendency


of this legislation. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) thought it was right to exclude the workman because assurances have been given. What are those assurances, when put against the history which I have recited in this matter? We have no assurance that the Government in their new proposals for industrial injury insurance will provide common law rights for the workman. If their attitude is to be deduced from their past behaviour, we know they will exclude the workman. I would therefore direct the hon. and learned Member's attention to the point that this is an encouragement to the Government to wipe out the common law rights of the workman altogether, if we agree that the workman ought to be excluded from the Bill, because they will have a precedent for it. That is my argument.

Mr. C. Davies: It is clear that the workman will be at a disadvantage under the Bill when compared with the ordinary member of the public. When the Bill becomes law the ordinary member of the public will not lose his right to damages merely because he has been negligent, but the workman will still remain under the old law. Cannot we use that argument against the Government and say, as long as that position remains: "Where is your pledge to carry out a new code dealing with the law between employer and employee?"

Mr. Ness Edwards: That does not commit the Government to anything. Before the Bill was introduced, the Government were committed to introducing their Bill on industrial injury insurance. They have said nothing more. I do not interpret the pledge given by the Solicitor-General in the same way as the hon. and learned Member, and I think it would be unfair to do so. Under the industrial injury insurance scheme, every employer will pay the same contribution on behalf of workmen in every industry. The mine-owners in South Wales will save £1,200, 000 a year. Then it will not matter what the incidence of accidents may be in any colliery, as there will be no financial inducement to the employer to cut his rate of accident. The only remedy the workman will have, apart from general remedies under Factory Acts and regulations, where an employer has been

negligent because his financial responsibility has been reduced, will be to take action at common law. The greater the opportunity provided for the workman to take that action, the lower will be the incidence of accidents in the mines and factories of this country. The workman is entitled to be treated as a citizen. There is no reason why he should be denied rights which are being given generally under the Bill to citizens and why he should be treated as in a separate and special class.

1.43 p.m.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I do not want to continue the Debate on the argument about compensation to which we have listened at length this morning, because although it may be very desirable and interesting to those who put it forward, we have perhaps pursued it far enough in view of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General's statement in the matter. I hesitate to intervene in the discussion on the Bill, partly because of the brilliant and disconcerting array of legal talent which I see on the benches opposite. However, I venture to make one or two remarks of a more general kind. In regard to the subject of negligence our minds have been rather sidetracked to accidents on the road, and to the other Bill to which the Solicitor-General has referred, dealing with cycles. I am not sure whether we should lightly set aside the common law. It is the result of the wisdom of many generations of our countrymen, and although its conclusions may have been arrived at slowly, too slowly for some people, nevertheless they are generally profound and wise conclusions. I, therefore, always regard with a certain amount of caution, the arguments of people who say they would like the common law to be set on one side and replaced by Statute. Although I welcome the Bill in some respects, nevertheless I do think we are too anxious to replace the common law. Actions for negligence are not confined to the roads or workmen's compensation. They embody a vast field of activity and I wish to draw the attention of the House to quite another group of actions for negligence. I would like the opinion of the Solicitor-General on these matters.
I do not wish to express any strong views myself, but there is a whole series of cases in respect of which actions are


frequently taken against professional men —they all come under this Bill—against solicitors and doctors and other people who follow certain occupations. I want to know from the Solicitor-General what he thinks will happen in such actions when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. I ask for that for several reasons, because I have a very strong idea that the number of these actions will probably increase. Some years ago I investigated, for my own information, the records of actions taken against doctors, for what is known as malpractice. I found that, as a rule, the plaintiffs failed. Very seldom did they succeed in getting damages. The court took a great deal of convincing; it required a great deal of support for the plaintiff's case before it subjected professional men to damages and to the almost more important reflection on their professional reputation. These cases were largely those due to disappointment at the result attained. Perhaps somebody had suffered from an unpreventible after effect, or an illness had taken a turn which nothing would have averted; sometimes if one traced the motives behind such actions it would be found that they might have been brought from malicious motives or—[Interruption]—I would ask my hon. Friends opposite to allow me to continue. I myself sat patiently through many of their speeches on workmen's compensation, and I would ask them to extend a similar courtesy to me.
As I say, perhaps this Bill will tend to increase the number of actions taken wilfully against professional men by a number of persons on the off-chance of getting a quantum of damages. I was saying that I had investigated a very long list of such actions taken over the last 30 or 40 years against doctors, and that in very few cases did the plaintiff succeed. The court frequently condemned the plaintiff for bringing the action. Many of the actions were due to distress of mind but sometimes to spite or malice or sense of grievance. Very frequently in the case of doctors these actions fell into the category of actions resulting from confinements, pecuniary loss due to compulsory notification of infectious disease, and the treatment of fractures. It will be very easy, perhaps, now to come to the court and endeavour to show some degree of negligence. It may well

be that the courts will give a different valuation to the evidence under this new Bill—I do not know. No longer can a professional man rightfully urge contributory negligence in the application say of treatment, and thereby completely win his case.
Again, there is the case of actions brought against a solicitor for wrong advice when negotiations he has undertaken have failed. I need not give further examples. I simply offer these few remarks because I want the Solicitor-General to examine this side of the question. I think many people seeking cheap and easy money might find it a very simple and easy matter to sue a professional man in the hope that the court, while not necessarily going the whole way, will go some of the way and award some damages. There are other classes of cases which I have not discussed. I think that we are, perhaps, entering into these matters rather too rapidly. We must all agree that the rate of accidents on the roads constitutes a special problem which demands a Bill of some kind, but I am not sure whether such a Bill is required for the ordinary course of human relationships. I ask the Solicitor-General if he will be good enough to turn his mind to the aspect of the case I have raised.

1.52 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We all congratulate the Solicitor-General on introducing this Measure to-day. Practically all the speeches that have been made are an indication of how much it is welcomed, and the extent to which it is overdue. I must confess that I did not fully follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas). He appeared to suggest that a Measure of this kind was likely to increase the number of actions for negligence brought against doctors and other professional men. All I can say about that is that if, in the past, doctors have been guilty of negligence and have got away with it, it is time that racket was stopped.

Dr. Thomas: May I interrupt? I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to say that doctors have been guilty of negligence, and have got away with it. I said that the court in such cases has generally given a decision that the doctor has not been guilty of negligence. If the hon. Member assumes that there is some subtle negligence occurring every day which does


not come to light in any court, he is entirely wrong.

Mr. Hall: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Member. There is no need to engender heat. If a doctor has not been guilty of negligence he will find when the action comes to the court that the court will be well on his side. Other professional men, incidentally, are in a different position from a doctor, in that when a doctor is guilty of negligence the patient may not live to bring an action.

Dr. Thomas: I have heard that so often. It is a cheap gibe.

Mr. Hall: I would say, in reply to the speech of my hon. Friend sitting behind me, that this Bill will cover workmen in practically every direction other than accidents arising out of and in the course of their employment. Therefore they are in no different position from the ordinary citizen so far as that is concerned. It might be inferred from some of the remarks he made, though I am sure he did not mean them to be so taken, that he thought all workmen were excluded. That, in fact, is not the case. I agree heartily with my hon. and learned Friend who sits below the gangway that this Measure should be used as a lever to try and get legislation introduced at a very early date to regularise the position of the ordinary workman vis-à-vis the employer.
I desire to make one or two observations on one particular aspect of this Bill, and the effects that might flow from it. I refer to the question of costs. This point has been mentioned by one or two Members, but was dismissed rather lightly, I think, by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). As is common knowledge, under the rules of the Supreme Court costs are within the discretion of the trial judge, but he has to use that discretion judicially. That means that ordinarily where the plaintiff has sought a remedy to which he is entitled at law, unless he has misconducted himself he is entitled, as of right, to get his costs. When, however, payment-in has been made by a defendant a different set of circumstances arise. There a judge quite definitely can exercise his discretion, and normally takes account of the fact that payment-in has been made. As a rule, therefore, when payment-out occurs and the costs are

taxed, the unfortunate plaintiff may find himself in a much worse position financially in spite of having obtained damages by having to find both his own and the defendant's costs after payment out. This has frequently happened in the past where a plaintiff gets less, or about the same, damages as have been paid in. The result has been in many instances that where a man has recovered, say, £300 and had expected to recover £500, and has found that £300 has been paid into court, he has in the upshot been in a very much worse position than he would otherwise have been. That is a very grave risk now, and it seems to me that under this Bill that risk will be an even greater one, because where contributory negligence is pleaded and the percentage is assessed, he may find that he has not only increased costs to meet, but also in addition his contribution towards the assessed total damages.
While I think the answer which will be given this afternoon will be that nothing can be done to meet this difficulty under this Bill I would ask the Solicitor-General if it is possible for his Department to look into this matter to see whether the difficulty cannot be met by an alteration to the rules of the Supreme Court. That, I should imagine, is one way in which it could be done. Some day the whole question of costs will have to be considered though now on a Measure of this kind is not the moment even to debate that subject. The point I wish to make is, therefore, that under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, litigants will be put at an increased risk, not because they fear they may not get reasonable damages but that the costs that may be awarded against them in certain circumstances will be so prohibitive as to make recourse to the Courts at all a very expensive process for them.

1.59 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) has really dealt with one matter about which I feel a great deal of anxiety—the reasons why Clause 2 has been introduced in the manner that it has been. I am not yet convinced that Clause 2 could not have been so drafted as to prevent the exclusion of workers who are subject to the Workmen's Compensation Act. I speak with some measure of diffidence as my hon. and learned Friends have taken an interest which, as an old


workman, I appreciate very much in a Bill of this kind, but I am far from being satisfied that Clause 2 cannot now be redrafted to include workmen who are subject to the Workmen's Compensation Act.
We, as workmen, attach great importance to the right that a workman should enjoy, in all circumstances, to take action at common law. Very frequently an action of that kind is important to us as a committee of inquiry into acts of avoidable negligence on the part of employers. I hope that we may get very definite assurances that the Government are contemplating legislation in the near future; otherwise, we shall feel most aggrieved, and our suspicions will be intensified if this most unfair and extremely artificial distinction is to exist between a workman who is injured while at work and another citizen who is injured while walking the streets. Take the case of a workman who, while cutting across the colliery pit bank, is injured as a result of the negligence of the employer or of an employee of that employer. The workman may himself have contributed to his accident: then he cannot proceed under Clause 2 of this Bill. But if he leaves the colliery pit and steps onto a road and is seriously injured, he is able to proceed, if he is satisfied that he has been injured owing to the negligence of another person. That is a ridiculous distinction.
The incidence of accidents in this country to-day is extremely high. Every day inexperienced men and women are injured in the factories. This applies particularly to inexperienced young women, who are put to work on machines. Possibly, in many instances, these accidents are contributed to by the workpeople themselves, besides being a result of the negligence of the employer. One of the last cases I had to deal with before I left home to come here this morning was that of a young woman whose right arm, I am told, will be rendered permanently useless. She worked on a machine that was known to be defective, but there is a suspicion that she may herself have contributed to the accident. I am satisfied that were she covered by Clause 2 of this Bill—and I speak as one who has had considerable experience of these matters—she could bring a successful action against the employer. Let me give another example. A young lad has been injured severely through the negligence of the

employer or of an employee of the employer. The lad may have contributed in some degree to his own injury. He has been so injured that he will never again be able to follow that employment. It is conceivable that if a substantial sum were paid to him, as it probably would be paid if he were covered by this Bill, that money might help to train him for some employment, so that he would be able to look after himself to the end of his days. But, over and above everything, the right to actions at common law, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has said, is most useful to the workers of this country.
I am sorry to have to put it in this way, but that right is always a threat of exposure to a negligent or indifferent employer. I sincerely hope that between now and the Third Reading the Government will sympathetically consider the representations that have been made from almost every part of the House. Incidentally, during this interval between now and the date on which we are promised the better things to come, very serious accidents will take place to many thousands of workpeople in this country, and we are not happy that the sufferers should be excluded from the right which is extended to others under the Bill.

Mr. Levy: I have not had the privilege of listening to the whole of the Debate. Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that workmen's compensation should go and common law actions be substituted, or alternatively that the workman should have the right to choose between bringing an action under the Workmen's Compensation Acts or at common law, so that he may get the best of both worlds? In those circumstances, is the employer to have the same right?

Mr. Davies: The workman has not now the choice between two worlds.

Mr. Levy: I know that.

Mr. Davies: All we ask for is that the workman should not be excluded from any privilege that is offered to other citizens, under Clauses 1 and 2—Clause 2 being the one I am most concerned about. All we ask is that no distinction should be drawn between a workman on the one hand, and a citizen on the other hand, who may not be working.

Mr. Levy: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the workman shall be permitted to decide in the event of an accident, whether he shall proceed under the Workmen's Compensation Acts or at Common Law.

2.9 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: If it is any satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman to have a further answer to his question, I would remind him of what he knows already, that workmen already have that option.

Mr. Levy: That is what I thought.

Mr. Silverman: The objection to Clause 2 is that, in exercising that option, he should not have made available against him defences that are not open to other defendants. I would like to say a word about the general principle of the Bill, which has perhaps been rather overlaid by the argument about Clause 2. That is natural, because Clause 2 is the only part of the Bill that arouses any serious controversy. I say "any serious controversy," because, in listening to the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas), I seemed to detect that the principle was not universally accepted. The hon. Member rather made the point that some of us were not listening to his speech with great care. He was quite mistaken in that, and, therefore, I regret the more that he should not be here to hear the reassurance offered to him. He need not fear that under this Bill any defendant will suffer any injustice, or that anybody will be made defendant to an action when he ought not to be defendant to an action. This Bill does not alter the ordinary onus on every plaintiff who brings an action for damages at common law or for breach of a statutory regulation or for negligence of any kind, of proving that the negligence occurred. This Bill does not in any way remove or whittle down that obligation. Until the plaintiff has proved beyond doubt, first, that the defendant was negligent, and, second, that his negligence caused the plaintiff damage, there is no action at all; and nothing in this Bill alters that position in the least. But, under the law which this Bill proposes to amend, there was a position which could not possibly commend itself to any fair-minded person. It was utterly absurd and quite indefensible that a plaintiff who had succeeded in proving that he

had suffered very serious damage, owing to negligence in the performance of his duties to him by a defendant, could nevertheless be wholly and completely defeated—not defeated in part, not defeated in proportion, but wholly deprived of any remedy at all—if he was in any degree, no matter how small, contributorily responsible for the damage that occurred.
Those of us who have had to deal with these matters have known some very tragic cases indeed. I remember a very early case, in which I was involved, in which a little boy was rendered permanently and totally blind, in circumstances in which the driver of a motorcar was quite clearly to blame. The driver of the motorcar was able to say that the little boy had run a little carelessly into the street, not in such a way as to relieve the driver of all responsibility for what had occurred, but in such a way as to enable him to say, "I may have been mainly to blame, the lion's share of the responsibility may have been mine, but the boy was a little to blame too, and, therefore, he must live out the rest of his life in total blindness, without any remedy from me." I do not know why it has taken so long to get that position remedied. The hon. Member for Southampton talked with great reverence of the common law. One of the things which entities the common law to the respect which we all feel for it is its capacity to adjust itself, its capacity to develop, and its capacity to correct its own mistakes, from generation to generation. Sometimes we have to do it by Statute. In this case, although we are doing it by Statute and not by development of the common law, that Statute has been recommended to the House by a committee of very eminent lawyers, who have known about this position for many years. Therefore, I join in congratulating the Government on having introduced the Bill, and in saying that it, will have the support of almost every hon. Member, indeed, I think, every hon. Member of the House.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) was inclined to think that, under this Bill, a large part of the law on contributory negligence would disappear. I think that, on reflection, he may find that that is not so, and that, so far from it disappearing, it will become more and more important, because I hope that the courts will not


be inclined to regard this Bill as a reason for failing to address their minds to the question of whether the negligence of the plaintiff was really contributory negligence at all. Under the present law, it is not enough for a plaintiff to say to the defendant: "You were negligent, too." He has to go beyond that. He has to say: "Not merely were you negligent, too, but your negligence was a material part of the circumstances that resulted in the accident," and unless he can prove that if the negligence is not contributory, that ought to result not merely in no denial of damages in toto but no reduction of damages, either. All these considerations whether there has been negligence, and whether the negligence has really contributed to the accident, are just as important as ever. They are even more important than ever when it comes to assessing the degree of contributory negligence. I am afraid that the task of the law courts, so far from being simplified by this Measure, will be amplified, and I dare say that a good many lawyers will regret that. I do not know.
There is one other word I wish to say about the general principle. People have talked in this Debate, and my hon. and learned Friend was inclined to do so as well, rather as if they thought the Bill was to apply the law of collisions at sea to collisions on land. It does not quite do that, and I am very glad that it does not. In collisions at sea—I am no expert about it—I understand that the position is that you estimate the damage sustained by both ships, add them together, make a sum of the total damage, then assess precisely the ratio of blame between the two ships, and then divide the total damage in the proportions of the degree of negligence assessed. That is not the case here. Clause 1 does not do that, and I am glad that it does not, because it makes the position a little easier when you have to consider objections to Clause 2. I am glad that it does not do it for another reason. I do not think—although I know it was said that it was done in the Admiralty Court with great ease—that, when you are dealing with a case, say, of a child running across a street and being hit by a motor car, driven with less than proper care, you can really assess precisely the actual percentage degree of blame and apportion the total damages in quite that way. I am glad to see that Clause 1 does not do that. It does not say that the total

damage shall be put together and divided in any exact proportions. What it does say is this:
… a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage":
That means, surely, that the court or jury will have to do what a great many people have done in negotiations in the past. They will have to say to themselves, supposing total liability is established, "What is the amount of the damage? What are the chances of success?" They would arrive at some sort of rough and ready ratio, or reduction of damages to make allowance for some contributory negligence, but without any specific, precise or mathematical allocation of percentage. I think it would be very much easier to work in that way.

Mr. Hughes: We are dealing here with a case where both plaintiff and defendant are negligent. If there had been damage, say, to two vehicles, there would probably be a counter-claim by the defendant against the plaintiff, and, if that be the position, that will be the same as the position in regard to collisions at sea.

Mr. Silverman: No doubt, that is, roughly, true, but whereas, in Admiralty law, you start from that position and begin with an application assess the total damage, here you do not. It is quite true that, if the defendant brings a counter-claim, it will have to be dealt with on the same principle as the original claim, and, no doubt, this would result, in a rough and ready way, in a summation of damage and an apportionment of damage. Even then, it is not a precise apportionment at all. There is room for discretion. It is elastic, and I think it is better that it should be so.
I would like to make one other general comment. The hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe), I see, is in his place, and I want to say that I sympathise with his point about costs. I think there is something in what he says end I would like the Government to consider whether some direction or rough-and-ready guide as to costs, could not be included somewhere in this Bill. I know that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Davies) said some-


thing about costs following the event, but it is not quite as simple as that. A defendant has the right to make a payment into court, and, nowadays, he has the right to make a payment into court at any stage in the action. I wish he had not; I thought that was a mistake. I think the old rule by which, if he wanted, he made a payment into court at an early stage in the action, and, if he wanted to make a further payment at any time, had to obtain the leave of the court, was better. The present position is intolerable. Defendants wait until the bulk of the costs have been incurred; they wait until both plaintiff and defendant have involved themselves up to the hilt in the full measure of costs of an Assize trial, and, at that stage, make a payment into court. Payments into court were not intended to be of that kind, but to be a check on litigation. They put a plaintiff quite rightly in the position that, if he could have obtained without litigation, more than or as much as he obtains with it, then his action is shown to be unjustifiable, and there is no reason why he should have the costs of it. You destroy the whole benefit of that if you allow him to make payment into court when all the costs have been incurred.
Everybody knows that the assessment of damages always was a gamble when juries had to assess them, and it is certainly no less of a gamble now. In the old days, at any rate, there were 12 people sitting in the jury box, and the idiosyncrasies of one and another produced a rough approximation to a measure of the damage. Nowadays, there is only one man on the bench, and even the Court of Appeal denies itself the right of interfering, even when it thinks it ought to interfere. That gamble is going to be very much worse now, because, if it was difficult to assess what the total damage ought to be in cases of total responsibility, now it is going to be more difficult than ever because of the second hurdle you have to get over. Now, not only have you to estimate correctly what the total damage is going to be, but, over and above that, estimate how much of this total damage you are likely to recover. So you have to make your guess twice over, and the possibilities of error are at least double. They may be much more than doubled. I think that the rule of costs following the event will work very

unfairly. I do not know how modifications can be introduced, or what modifications could be introduced. I confess that I had not thought of it myself very much until the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton mentioned it, as I am very glad he did. I hope the Government will consider it, and that, perhaps, when we come to the Committee stage something could be done, or that we may have an opportunity of considering whether something can be done about it.
Now I come to the controversial point. I cannot, for the life of me, and I say so with all respect to the Commission, see why Clause 2 is there at all. I looked at the reasons that are given and tried to see what validity there is in them. One of the things said by the Commission—I am sure by inadvertence—is that, in cases where the workman benefited by the application of this principle to him, the employer would suffer. Well, of course, so he would, but he would suffer only in the same proportion and for the same reason as every other class of defendant. There is no extra liability on the employer. If you say that this principle shall not be available to a workman, so far from putting the employer in a worse position than other people, you are putting him in a better position than other people. I am talking, of course, of those cases where the application of this principle would be beneficial to the workman. I will come in a moment to the other cases, which undoubtedly exist, where the application of the principles would not be beneficial. I admit there-are such cases, but I am dealing at the moment with the class of case in which the application of the principle would benefit the workman.
It surely cannot be seriously contended that, because the employer would suffer thereby, that is a reason for denying the workman the benefit of a principle which is applied to everybody else? [Interruption] Yes, it means that the loser will lose, but only in circumstances in which any other loser would lose. I do not think that could have been intended by the Commission to be regarded as a very serious argument. Then it is said that, in a number of cases, the application of the principle would not be beneficial to the workman at all. There is common ground, I think everywhere, that the workman, by reason of the fact that he has his remedy under the Workmen's


Compensation Act, is not quite in the position of other plaintiffs, by reason of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925. You cannot say, as some speakers have said, "Well, it applies to everybody else; why should it not apply to the workman?" There are, undoubtedly, special considerations arising out of that fact, but let us see what they are.
If it is only a question—and I say this to my hon. and learned Friend with great earnestness—of a few hard cases, well, hard cases make very bad law. You might devise a protection for a number of hard cases. In fact it would be easy to devise protection for such cases, and the Commission say that very clearly. They said it in their Report. On the other hand, if it was not a question of a few hard cases but was more like the general rule that the workmen would not benefit, no doubt the argument would have to take a different form altogether, though whether it would make any difference to the final argument I am not so sure.
There is one class of case with which the Commission deal that, clearly, cannot arise under this Bill. My hon. and learned Friend saw a difficulty about it when I interrupted him in moving the Second Reading. I do not want to leave it there. I do not think there is any doubt about it at all. The Commission say, in effect, "But supposing somebody else is blamed as well as the employer, then not merely will the damage have to he apportioned between the employer and the worker, but between the employer, the worker and the other worker in common employment, and the result will be that the workman will get very little." That is precisely what the Bill does not say. There is nothing of that kind in the Bill. Clause 1 does not say anything of the sort. That was the point I was making a little time ago when I said it was not a question of percentage claims and of dividing the totality of damage in proportion among a different number of tort-feasors. The court has only to consider under Clause 1 whether the defendant was negligent and if so whether the claimant was guilty of contributory negligence. If it answers both those questions affirmatively, then its duty is in the words of the Clause to reduce the damages to such an extent as the court thinks just and equitable, having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage and not to anybody

else, not to any third party or to a whole concomitance of general circumstances which result in an accident. I appreciate that by a circuit of a whole series of actions you could get, more or less, the same result in the end, but that could only happen under Clause 1, if a workman was so ill-advised as to sue a fellow-workman as well as his employer. Otherwise, that particular case feared by the Commission cannot arise under the Bill at all.
There might be a counter-claim by the employer against the workman if the employer's case was that the workman was, in whole or in part, responsible for the damage. My hon. and learned Friend has had, I suppose, at least as much experience of this class of case as anybody in this House. In what proportion of the cases he has had, where somebody has lost a hand, or finger, or an arm because the employer failed to provide a dangerous machine with the protection that the Factory Acts say he ought to have provided does the machine suffer any damage commensurate with the lost finger, the lost hand or the lost arm? I do not want to be too dogmatic, but it would be fantastic to suggest that there has been any serious number of cases in which the damage to the machine equalled the damage to the worker, or was so great that on the joint computation of responsibility the workman would suffer a serious loss.
In a great many of these factory cases, it is the breach of statutory regulations which gives the workman his right of action—not by any means in all the cases, but in a great many of them. It was thought by lawyers until very recently that contributory negligence was no answer to such a claim at all. It used to be thought that once there was a statutory duty upon a man to guard a dangerous machine, that if he neglected that duty and damage was the result, then whoever suffered the damage was entitled to his remedy against an employer in breach of a statutory duty. It was thought that that was a reasonable view to take. Why do you have to guard machines at all? It is because familiarity breeds contempt. As people go on working for days, and weeks, and months, and for years following upon years, they become not careless in the ordinary sense of the word at all, but the very fact that they are so accustomed to the surround-


ings, leads them to disregard dangers obvious to everybody else, and which would be obvious to them if these matters were always in the forefront of their minds. It becomes a sort of reflex action, and sometimes the reflex does not work, and that is why the State thought it right to put a statutory obligation upon employers to guard the machines.
If, in these circumstances, damage was suffered lawyers used to think, until comparatively recently, that contributory negligence was no answer, but the House of Lords has decided that it may be. But you have to prove a fairly high degree of negligence on the part of the workman to succeed in a plea of contributory negligence in cases of that kind. These are the majority of cases in factories nowadays. Breach of statutory regulations is far more frequent than it ought to be and bears the principal share of responsibility for the accidents that are occurring. If must be very difficult indeed in a case of that kind to say that the damage suffered by the machine is commensurate with the damage suffered by the workman, and, having done that, then to show, over and above that, that his share of the responsibility for it, on the principles laid down in the House of Lords for contributory negligence in cases of this kind, is very high.
There are other cases which the Commission dealt with where the difficulty is that you may recover an amount of partial damages less than the value of a workmen's compensation claim. I did not follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen. It is extremely difficult to weigh up the comparative value of a weekly payment under the Workmen's Compensation Acts and a lump sum of damages, or indeed a lump sum of workmen's compensation, but it is a thing we all have to do, and we shall all have to do it now. I do not think that our task would be made any harder by realising that people sometimes get partial damages just as they sometimes get partial compensation. I do not think that it adds anything to the difficulty at all. Still, obviously, there will be cases where the value of the partial damage claimed would be less than the value of 100 per cent. workmen's compensation claim. For the life of me I do not see what the difficulty is. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly

(Mr. Ness Edwards) pointed out, the Commission suggested a means and I am inclined to say with all respect to the Commission rather an obvious means of protecting the workman against that. They do that in the report when they are dealing with another aspect of the matter.
There are cases where the workman can have a common law claim against a third party and a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act against his own employer. Just as the recovery of damages against the employer defeats a claim for workmen's compensation, so the recovery of damages against anybody else defeats a claim for workmen's compensation. It has exactly the same effect. But that is not excluded by the Bill at all. The Bill permits a workman to bring an action again a third party, without having the defence of contributory negligence raised against him even in cases where he has a workmen's compensation right as well. The Commission points out that it is necessary not merely to recover judgment but to recover damages before that defeats your claim. That is not quite true in cases of claims against the employer. I do not want to go into Committee points now, but I hope when the time comes we may consider what can be done. You could do it by the amendment of Section 29 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
I have been rather a long time but it was an advantage that all these matters should be reviewed, before we reach the Committee stage, so that no one will be taken by surprise when we come to that stage. I take it that my hon. and learned Friend agrees with me that, in principle, Clause 2 is bad; and that, on the merits, there is no reason why workmen like everybody else should not have the benefit of an improvement in the law. The real difficulty in the mind of the Government is that there may be hard cases and that a Commission is considering the totality of the law on these matters. I am not going to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly in attributing any sinister motives or intentions either to the Commission or to the Government. I feel sure that they would not be so foolish as to attempt to deprive the workman of his common law rights.

Mr. Buchanan: Not this Government.

Mr. Silverman: Not any Government. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that he thought we might leave Clause 2 in the Bill, because there is a pledge by the Government that they are going to do something about it some other time. That is really a very poor consolation to all those maimed and deformed people who are roaming our streets. It is no answer to a man who says, "I am being deprived of something. If I was not a workman and he was not my employer I would get this all right. But I do not mind in the least losing it; after all, somebody or other, in a year or two, or it may be five years and it may be longer, will, if he has suffered the loss of his leg or his arm, be all right and so I do not mind."
That is a position the Government ought not to contemplate. Our factories, many of them Government-owned, have been populated for the past three or four years by many thousands, I should guess perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people not accustomed to working at all, and certainly not accustomed to working amongst dangerous machinery. I am talking about young girls and young women directed, and rightly directed—I have no complaint of that and, so far as know, the majority of these people have no complaint of it—by the Minister of Labour into munition factories where they are transferred at once from sheltered, safe homes into vast workshops full of horrible, monster-like machinery they have never seen before. I do not know whether any statistics have been prepared—I hope some day there may be—as to how many of these young women have lost arms, hands, fingers. I have seen myself some very badly deformed and maimed limbs of girls who are little more than children, working in factories where machines ought to have been protected and were not protected.
The Workmen's Compensation Acts are no answer to that, because once the war is over they go right out of industry altogether. The Workmen's Compensation Acts do not give any damages for deformity, for pain and suffering. They do not give wages, they give part-wages, and only for so long as a person is available for employment. These people will not be available for employment, nobody ever wanted them to be, and they will go out of the industrial world altogether, so that the Workmen's Compensation Acts

are no answer to them. Those Acts give them no permanent remedy, though the disability they suffer is often permanent. What is the good of going to these people and saying, "Do not bring your action for damages because you are 1 per cent. or 5 per cent. to blame yourself and you will not get anything. Although everybody else in the world would, in those circumstances, get 95 per cent. or 99 per cent. of damages, that is not applicable to you. You will not get it because a gracious, benevolent, sympathetic Government are considering what they will do for somebody else some other time." That is a bad argument. Why should you not give people now the benefit of what you are doing? Why should you think it good to deprive them of it because you are considering, whether or not at some other time you will give it to somebody else? I think this matter ought to be reconsidered. It will not prejudice the final report of the Commission in the least; it will no more prejudice them in their final report to put employers in than it prejudices them to leave them out. The argument is just the same both ways.
On any view of the matter, it will be a long time before any change in the law generally, arising out of the report of this Commission, becomes operative. I suppose it is conceivable that there might be a report this Session, that there might be legislation this Session, but nobody can possibly suppose that it will be less than two or three years at the earliest before these changes can become operative. Yet for everybody else you are making changes that will become operative at once, I appeal to my hon. and learned Friend, therefore; to consider this matter very seriously again before we reach the Committee stage. If Clause 2 were left out, and if there were substituted for Clause 2 a Clause giving the benefit of this to workmen as well, with suitable safeguards for hard cases on both sides, you would have in this little Measure an absolutely perfect amendment of our law. Leaving it out, you leave it open to people to say that you are altering the law for the benefit of everybody else and leaving the workman out of it.

2.50 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: I think the arguments have been almost entirely exhausted by the speeches which have been made already, but it is necessary for those who are associated with the


mining industry to say that when we come to the further stages of the Bill, we shall have to resist Clause 2 very strenuously, and try to prevail upon the House to amend it, because it asks us to agree to a distinction which, if we agree to it, will appear to be a mandate to the Government on future legislation dealing with workmen's compensation and common law liability. That is our difficulty. It may be that there is an argument that at the moment the whole structure of industrial liability is being revised, and therefore we ought to consider this as an interim Measure. But, as has already been said, it is a strange thing to make a distinction which, on the surface of it, is invalid and then ask us to retain the distinction while an investigation into its validity is proceeding.
The distinction at the moment is that the workman has a remedy which is not available to the citizen and that, therefore, he suffers no disability in not having the benefits of this Bill. But the workman has a disability that the rest of the citizens have not got, and because of the higher incidence of danger which he suffers in his employment, workmen's compensation is not an additional benefit which a workman has as against a citizen who is not a workman, because a workman is a citizen as well, and therefore, in his capacity as a citizen, he runs the normal dangers of other citizens and, in his capacity as a workman, he is exposed to additional dangers. Therefore, workmen's compensation is not an additional advantage, and to suggest, as has been suggested with regard to Clause 2, that we ought not to extend its benefits to the workman because he already has remedies under the Workmen's Compensation Acts begs the whole question. I suggest, therefore, in all seriousness that there is no logic behind the contention.
There is one thing to which we attach very great importance indeed, and that is the extent to which the development of modern insurance has relieved the employer of any financial liability with respect to compensation and his own misbehaviour. It is feared that there will be a great increase in the number of common law actions if Clause 2 goes out and the benefits of the Bill under Clause 1 are extended equally to the workman as to the citizen generally. I hope there will be, because it is absolutely essential

that the employer should be subject to some discipline and penalties for negligence. It used to be argued that workmen's compensation itself was a protection against the bad employer, because it imposed liabilities and additional penalties upon him. We all know that is not the case and, therefore, actions in the courts against employers for partial or complete negligence are very important forms of discipline against negligent employers. So far from reducing the number of common law actions in cases of this sort, we would like to see them increased, especially just now when very large numbers of unskilled people have been drawn into the factories, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Collie (Mr. Silverman) points out.
Therefore I want to intimate to the Government that in Committee we shall want to examine Clause 2 very much more closely. It is not our intention, and we do not want to do so, to jeopardise the Bill as a whole, because Clause 1 confers very substantial benefits, and the Government are to be congratulated upon bringing it in. However, we want to register the strongest possible protest against an assumption which, if we do not fight it now, may be embodied in permanent legislation when industrial disabilities are further considered. I hope that these considerations will appeal to the Government when they come to the Committee stage.

2.56 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I can only speak again with the leave of the House, but in view of the most interesting points that have been raised from so many quarters, I hope the House will give me such leave. It might be convenient if I dealt first with general points, before coming to Clause 2, which, as many Members have said, is the only matter in controversy. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) said the new problem which the Bill sets would increase the difficulties of His Majesty's judges or juries who would have to decide it. Of course since then he has had the advantage of being informed on that point by a number of other hon. Members and some hon. and learned Members, but I do not think myself that the new problem will be a real addition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) and, I think, others pointed out, the old problems of causation are still with us. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member


for Peckham will cast back his mind to some of the more difficult running-down cases in his own experience, when somebody has asked: "Is the defendant to blame?" and the defendant has said: "The plaintiff is to blame." The plaintiff then has said: "The defendant had an opportunity of avoiding my negligence," and, on that, the defendant has said: "But your action put me in such a position that I could not exercise that opportunity," and the plaintiff has replied by saying: "But if you had not bad brakes on your car, you would have been able to take the opportunity which you did not take." And so we used to go on until one was in doubt as to whether it was any easier than the old question of the "school marm": "Where a man and a monkey start on different sides of the tree, and they each walk to the position from which they started, has the man walked round the monkey?" There was the same complexity of causation in these problems. They will still remain, and, as I say, I would ask my hon. Friend to consider whether this addition will really greatly add to the problems that judges have had to consider.
The other point my hon. Friend made was on the question of costs, and that was also developed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne. In the majority of cases under the present law, and, indeed, as it existed before the war, these will be dealt with by a judge alone, sitting without a jury. The costs will then be in his discretion. Let me take one case and tell the House how I think it would turn out. The plantiff brings his action on the basis that he is not negligent at all. He says: "It is the defendant's fault that I was injured". The defendant says: "No, it was your own fault" or, alternatively: "It was partly your own fault" and succeeds in showing that it was partly the plaintiff's own fault, and establishes that the plaintiff's damages come down by 25 per cent. Then, strictly, the plaintiff has succeeded on the issue of the defendant's negligence, and the defendant has succeeded on the issue of establishing contributory negligence, of a partial contribution to the accident on the part of the plaintiff. If you followed it mathematically you would get the cost of these issues, but I am sure that that would not be

done, as it would be a cumbrous matter. Anything I say is, of course, only what I would do myself if I had to decide the issue; but if that is done I do not think there will be any injustice in the question of costs.
I would like to deal with a separate point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. R. Thomas), namely, as to actions against professional men. I have had certain experience in the class of actions he mentioned, in both the professions he mentioned, and I think the majority of Members with similar experience would agree that the question of contributory negligence arises remarkably seldom, and that the issue in these cases is whether there has been negligence or some breach of duty on the part of the professional man. That takes a great deal of establishing, and there are very few successful cases. In that class of case I cannot see that the professional defendant will be prejudiced in any way, and I cannot regard that as a reason for not going on with the proposals which I have commended to the House. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne that this does not remove the primary question that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant is guilty of negligence, and the defendant must prove that there is negligence which has contributed to the accident. Unless he can prove that the question does not arise. The only other question was the rather detailed one, that this might make difficult the question of whether one ought to accept payment in. It makes the question of deciding what is the proper payment in also a difficult one, but I do not think that is a point I need pursue at this stage. If the hon. Member has any ideas on that I should be glad if he will communicate them to me.
Now I want to deal with the broad question raised by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) as to the suggestion—he did not put it higher than that—that the Government seemed to be against Common Law proceedings on the part of a workman. I would like to disabuse him entirely on that point. If he casts his mind back to the speeches made by the Home Secretary, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and myself, during the Debate on Part II of the White Paper, he will not find a single word which justifies that suggestion. So far as the


present position is concerned, the Government have no intention of taking a line against Common Law action. What they did was to refer the matter to the most representative and authoritative Committee they could find, and ask them to consider it. I think it is relevant to point out that in Paragraph 7 of the Interim Report the Monckton Committee say:
We are reluctant to express even an interim opinion upon any of the questions indicated in Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of this Report"—
these are the cases which we have discussed at considerable length, as to when the workman may be damnified by this proceeding, and when he would benefit and when the employer would benefit—
without first hearing the views of organisations representative of employers and workmen. These organisations have not yet given evidence before us.
Until the Monckton Committee have heard what is the view of the T.U.C. and the Employers' Federation on the question of whether there ought to be these common law claims they cannot, as they say, express their views on these points. That is perfectly right. I gather from listening to what the hon. Member for Caerphilly, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and others have said, that the Miners' Federation wants these Common Law claims maintained. But, according to the Committee, the T.U.C. have not expressed their view, and until the Committe have the view of the T.U.C. I do not think one can blame them for being chary of expressing a view.

Mr. A. Bevan: Might it not have been possible for the Committee to reach another conclusion, something to this effect: "It is for us to make a distinction between the class of citizens in the recommendations we are making without first of all hearing the observations of employers' and workmen's organisations on the matter"?

Mr. Ness Edwards: It must be within the Solicitor-General's recollection that both the Miners' Federation and the T.U.C. put forward evidence, first to the Royal Commission and then in a special memorandum to the Home Office, pressing their claim for the common law.

The Solicitor-General: It ought to be within my recollection about the Royal Commission, and if it is not I apologise.

But, with great respect, I do not think that that affects my point. The Monckton Committee were asked to deal with the question: Is Section 29 to stand in its present form or not? Before they decide on matters which may involve an amendment of Section 29 they want to know, broadly, what are the views of organised labour and employers on that point. I am sure my hon. Friend will tell us, if it is material, but I do not know whether the Miners' Federation have yet put in a memorandum to the Monckton Committee.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand this to be the position: The Monckton Committee did not invite evidence before issuing their Interim Report. I understand that they are now going on with their sittings, and that evidence has been invited.

The Solicitor-General: I was dealing with the point that the hon. Member for Caerphilly was obviously worried about, that there was some weight in the mind of the Government against the Common Law action. No Member of the Government has ever suggested such a thing. The Government set up a Committee to consider what should happen to Section 29. At the time the Committee gave their Interim Report they had not had the advantage of knowing the views of organised labour and they said: "Do not let us deal with any of the questions raised in paragraphs (4), (5) and (6) until we have the views of organised labour and the employers." Then we come to the point whether they were right in taking that line. They say, broadly, that there is one class of case where the matter is in doubt. That is when there is a large percentage of blame on the part of the workman and he is only going to get a fifth or a tenth of his damages, and a considerable workmen's compensation claim. They say that is obviously a point of difficulty. It is a point of difficulty. I remember years ago saying that the biggest award that I had ever got in a workmen's compensation case was £950, when someone had lost most of the sight of his eye. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) interrupted me and said he knew of a case of £1,000. No one else could suggest a bigger sum, so that is somewhere about the maximum. On the other hand, in a common law claim where the result had been the same, the


sum might have been £5,000. I doubt if anyone would say he could get much more. That only allows down to 20 per cent. of liability. Even though £5,000 is the maximum that could be got at common law and £1,000 under workmen's compensation, it only allows 20 per cent. It is really a difficult point. I have taken an extreme case but it applies all along the range of accidents.
Now I take the point that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne sought to dispose of, the question of a counter claim. He is right. In the majority of factory cases in my experience the injury to the workman outweighs entirely any damage done to the machine. On the other hand, in the case of explosions, especially in the mining industry, the damage which the employer has suffered would be considerable, but this is the real point to be borne in mind: that for the first time, under this Bill, there is something on which to enforce judgment. There is the plaintiff's claim. The example that I took was a case where the plaintiff was entitled to £1,000 damages and the employer had sustained £3,000 damage. The plaintiff is entitled to £500 and the employer to £1,500. That is, he gets for the first time £500 towards his £1,500 against the workman's claim. The question of counter-claim in that class of case may become more important than it has been in the past. I have taken the two cases on which the Committee relied. They are cases which want consideration.
Now I come to estimate the extent of the problem. We have been reminded that it does not mean that because a man is a workman he does not get the benefit of his claim. It is only in an action against his own employer arising out of and in the course of his employment. The number of those cases is substantial but it is not a very high fraction of the large number of cases. The hon. Member for Caerphilly will remember that in the case of Casswell v. Powell Duffryn which I fought for him some years ago we made considerable inroads on the question of contributory negligence as an answer to breach of statutory duty. We did not establish a full doctrine, but we got rid of the idea that every act that a workman might do could be considered an act of contributory negligence if he happened to go wrong after doing months of the same repetitive work. We cleared that out of

the way and by that means we very largely limited contributory negligence as an anwer to breaches of statutory duty, covering those under the Coal Mines Act and in all other dangerous trades. Therefore again the number of cases is limited.
Here we have a Committee considering whether Section 29 shall remain as it is or not. If the evidence is as hon. Members have suggested, the Committee is going to have at an early date ample information on which to decide. Obviously we ought not to go further than that. When they have come to a conclusion, the Government will decide the final form of Section 29. What has been suggested by the hon. Member for Caerphilly and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is that we should to-day amend Section 29 in order to give an election to the workman at the time when he knows the Common Law damages. It appears to us that it would be unfortunate at this stage to make our small Amendment in Section 29 when the general principle is being examined and the form in which Section 29 will fit in with the industrial insurance scheme made clear.
With regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has said, he will remember that in the final speech on the Debate on Part II of the White Paper, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did give his assurance as to the bringing in of legislation to implement the White Paper at the earliest possible date, which he believed would be an early date. That is the position with regard to this matter. The Government are not suggesting—and I want to put it in the most unequivocal terms—that the workman who suffers an accident in the course of his employment should be put in any worse position than any other member of the community. That is the last thing that we desire. We do feel that here is a problem which we have threshed out in a most interesting Debate in this House, and it is one on which we want the most expert advice, and when we have had that advice we shall be able to see the final form of Section 29. Until then, merely as a temporary Measure, we suggest that we should not bring in any special arrangements until we are clear whether these cases which I have mentioned and which the Committee have mentioned are likely to be merely the odd cases or are likely to be the cases which form the major part of the picture.
I am sorry that I have had to inflict another speech on the House—I am afraid at considerable length—but those of us who are interested in industrial injuries and the legal consequences find it very difficult not to express our views and to discuss them. I hope the House will forgive me and, in a general sense, give a Second Reading to the Bill in the light of what has been said, all of which will be most carefully considered.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING (CYCLES) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 8th February].

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Cesser of exemption, in case of pedal cycles, from obligation to carry rear lamps.)

Question again proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.24 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: In the first place, may I make a protest against the Committee stage being resumed to-day? It will be remembered that on 8th February I moved to report Progress on the ground that the Law Reform Bill, which we have just been discussing, ought to be in its final form before we considered this Bill. The Law Reform Bill has now received its Second Reading, but that does not mean that it may not be altered later in Committee, and I think it is really treating the Committee a little unfairly to take the proceedings on this Bill this afternoon. I am certain that in normal times the protest would be a much stronger one than the one I feel inclined to make now.
This first Clause, which I think we ought to vote against, really deals with the main principle of the Bill. It is a marvellous example of how not to draft a Bill. Everything has been done backwards, at least that is how it looks to me, and I hope that in due course the Solicitor-General, or the Attorney-General, or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, will assure us that, after having read the Bill, he really

understands it. It looks to me that it says, in a rather complicated way, that on a bicycle there must be a white patch, a red reflector and, in addition, a lamp, which is presumably alight. I know the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) is not much worried whether the light is on or off, but we will come to discuss that later. His interest has somewhat diminished, but obviously because he wants to make sure that his friends carry one of Lucas's—

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss that now or we shall not be able to discuss it later.

Sir H. Williams: I will refrain from my reference to the firm of Lucas until we reach the new Clause. With great respect I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary was quite as open with us as he should have been. I made some reference in the previous Debate, which I think was last week, to the fact that statistics had not been made as fully available as they should have been to hon. Members. As a result of that protest, the figures month by month for the last two years were brought to light. I do not want anybody to think that those reports by any means represent a satisfactory analysis. They are a very poor analysis, because they have divided the day into hours of darkness and hours of light, but what we really want to know is what happens, say, about eight o'clock in the morning when the workmen are cycling to work; what is happening in a lesser degree round about the mid-day meal time, when about half of them are on their machines again; and what is happening somewhere between five and six in the evening. These are the periods when there are lots of bicycles on the road and, if my observation is correct, when the bulk of the accidents take place.
So far as these figures can be analysed, bicycle accidents in the main take place in daylight. That is the first interesting point. Then, there are more in summer time than in winter. It may be that there are more bicycles on the road then, and more vehicles to cause the injuries to cyclists, but there is no doubt that in summer there are more accidents than there are in daylight and at night in winter. Every month there are over 100 tragedies on the roads. The reports do not indicate at all what is the cause of these accidents, and to what extent they are


due to one vehicle overrunning the other, which is what we want to discover to-day. There is no information at all about this in these reports. There is an analysis made by the police which shows that the vehicle principally concerned in, I think, about 13 per cent. of the cases is the bicycle. It does not indicate whether it was the bicycle which killed somebody or whether it was the cyclist who killed himself through his own fault. It is really a deplorable analysis.

Viscountess Astor: rose—

Sir H. Williams: If the Noble Lady will kindly listen she will learn something.

Viscountess Astor: I am very much interested to learn that a lot of the accidents happen between six and eight. Does it ever occur to the hon. Member that the "pubs" open at six?

3.30 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: I knew that the Noble Lady was not listening, because what I said—

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that the question of "pubs" arises under this Clause.

Sir H. Williams: The point is that the bulk of the accidents happen at eight in the morning, round about mid-day, and between five and six. That is what I said. It is obvious that the Noble Lady, who is so anxious to talk, did not trouble to listen. If she did listen, she did not understand. I do not think the Minister was candid in this respect. He led us to believe that if we studied these statistics we should be forced to the conclusion that the case for the rear light had been made out.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I said several times that I sought to draw no conclusion from the statistics, except that they did not prove that the lights were a failure.

Sir H. Williams: They have not proved anything.

Mr. Noel-Baker: But it had been widely asserted that the statistics had proved that the lights were a failure.

Colonel Lyons: Are there any figures or reports which will give any information on this matter?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, in the pre-war reports, which were issued at two-yearly intervals, the last being in 1937. They contain a good deal of information which is of real value. The figures obtained during the war amply cover the point, but they are very imperfect. We receive them through the police, who are so heavily over-burdened with other duties that we cannot ask them to do more than they are doing.

Sir H. Williams: It is not because the police are over-burdened, but because they are not instructed to analyse the figures properly. What is the use of having statistics unless the causation is shown? There is no indication of causation. The police know perfectly well that if 80 cyclists have been killed in a month, their reports should come under such headings as "Ran into an obstruction," "Ran into a vehicle ahead," "Overrun by a vehicle," or "Tripped in a tramline." There are half-a-dozen main causes, and if we had reports which gave some indication—

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I read what my hon. Friend might have found in the documents in the Library?
The term 'vehicle primarily involved' means:

(1) where only one vehicle was concerned, that vehicle;
(2) where more than one vehicle was concerned, the vehicle to which the accident appears to be primarily attributable."
In neither case does it imply that the driver of the vehicle was culpable. To make a closer analysis than that would involve a heavy burden on the police. I know, because I have been studying the matter for new arrangements to be made after the war, and it is impossible to ask them, with their present resources of manpower, to do what my hon. Friend suggests should be done.

Sir H. Williams: That is very interesting, because we are told when the bicycle appears as the primary cause of the accident, but we are not told whether the bicycle has killed a pedestrian or whether it has killed a cyclist. We have been told that the bicycle is the primary cause in 13 per cent. of the total, and, as the number of cyclists killed is 13 per cent. of the total, these figures lead to the conclusion that the cyclists killed themselves. These preposterous figures are put before us and this Bill is based on them. I


protest against the lack of candour with which we have been treated. There are no figures in the Library and Members can only get them by consulting the records of the reports in the Library and then signing a green form and buying a copy from the Stationery Office. We do not even have a few copies placed in the Vote Office so that Members could have easy access to the pre-war figures. I thought it would be useful to find out what inquiries have been made. In the Second Reading Debate the Parliamentary Secretary said that this Bill was being introduced partly on the advice of the Road Traffic Advisory Council, a body of some 30 people all but one being persons not interested in cycling. What did that body do? We were not told this in the Debate. They appointed a Sub-Committee of 13 persons to carry out experiments on the roads, under varying conditions, to show whether it would be a good or a bad idea to have a rear light on bicycles. The Parliamentary Secretary did not tell us about that. He did not tell us that by a majority, I believe a very small majority, that Committee, which spent months on tests, advised against the rear light.

Colonel Lyons: Is that right?

Sir H. Williams: Certainly. Let me read the answer to a Question, No. 89, which I put down for to-day, but which was not reached. The Question was:
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he will place in the Vote Office copies of the report of the Sub-Committee of the Traffic Advisory Committee on the question of rear lights for cycles.
The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, which was given as a written reply, was:
The Sub-Committee to which my hon. Friend refers were all members of the Traffic Advisory Council, to which their report was submitted. The full Council considered this report and drew up their own findings, which they submitted to the Minister of Transport and which were published as a White Paper in 1938. The Committee did not transmit the report of the Sub-Committee to the Minister, who was, therefore, unable to publish it in the White Paper. Plainly, therefore, my Noble Friend could not publish the report now.
Why could be not? What right has he to introduce a Bill based on a report which, in turn, was a reversal of a report of experts? Parliament ought to see that report, and it is discourteous to this Com-

mittee and to another place not to produce it. Some of the youngsters who have just come to Parliament and have no belief in Parliament, do not understand what democracy means and do not care, but some of us do, and we think that legislation ought to be based on an adequate supply of information. Anything else is disrespectful to the House of Commons. I am going to say that by a majority the experts who examined this matter were against rear lights.

Mr. A. Bevan: What was the date?

Sir H. Williams: The report of the Council was presented to Parliament in 1938. The report of the Sub-Committee, which was adverse, was not presented to Parliament.

Colonel Lyons: Why?

Sir H. Williams: Because it did not suit this body of non-experts which overruled the Sub-Committee—the men of evil and lovers of darkness who want to keep the light out.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is it not true that four years further back, in 1934, a further committee refused to make such a recommendation as is now suggested in the Bill? I believe that there was a proposal by one member of the Committee, but if members refused to support the proposal and would not recommend it.

Sir H. Williams: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to that point later on. Those of us who are opposing this Bill are doing it in the sincere belief that this proposal will increase the risk of accidents and not diminish it. The general assumption is that if we pass a law that there shall be a rear light, there will be one. On Saturday I was on the South coast where lots of people ride bicycles, and I inspected as many as I could. I will hazard a guess that at least one half of them had no rear light. I was looking at them during the day, and perhaps it meant that many people never ride at night, and are perhaps wise in not doing so. The fact remains that a very large proportion of the bicycles on the road to-day have no rear lights. We were told that rear lights are marvellous and have vastly improved. In order to establish that fact the Parliamentary Secretary read a letter from the manu-


facturers. If I make a thing and the Government ask me: "Are your things good?" I naturally reply with a decisive affirmative. That is what is called good advertising. If I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Gretton) whether Bass's beer was good, he would say: "Certainly," and if I asked the Noble Lady if Plymouth soda water was good, I should have a similar affirmative.

Viscountess Astor: If I asked the hon. Gentleman if whiskey was good he would say "Yes."

Sir H. Williams: But I am not a producer of whiskey. I am talking about those who produce the goods. Naturally anybody will say that the article he sells is good. I would not be in the least surprised if my old friend the managing director of that firm who, as we all know, is a Member of this House, smiled with appreciation when he saw the letter which the Parliamentary Secretary addressed to the company of which he is chairman. I am not surprised that he is smiling now. He thinks what a good secretary he has. We know that we cannot buy a car without being full of Lucas's stuff, but that does not say that every rear lamp for a bicycle is a good article.
I think accidents will be increased, despite the provisions of the Bill which we have just been discussing, under which in many cases cyclists may get no compensation at all. It is clear from that part of the Debate on the earlier Bill to which I listened that there are elements of uncertainty. I would ask the Government not to press this Bill during the war. Let us have a proper investigation by an impartial body of people. It would not be difficult; one was carried out by a body of interested people, and even they, by a majority, came to the conclusion that this proposal was unjustified. There is no hurry for this legislation: so long as we have the black-out and the Emergency Powers Act, which will last for a couple of years, we can still have the temporary war-time restriction, and I ask the Government not to enact permanent legislation before there has been a proper investigation of the position.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I am very much in favour of the suggestion so admirably stated by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) that the Government should not press this

Clause. I would like to assure the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe), who I think was very unkind and, indeed, rude in his suggestion that I was either speaking for a vested interest or reciting somebody else's words, in my objections to the Second Reading of the Bill, that in the remarks I am addressing this afternoon to the Committee I have nobody behind me, nor shares in any battery company. I have certainly no interests in any way connected with any cycling union, cycling club or wheelers' club. They are my own views that I am expressing, and nobody else's.
I appeal to hon. Members to approach this matter not as cyclists or motorists but as Members of Parliament and to judge it in the spirit in which the British Parliament always acts when examining proposals for legislation. It is not the cyclists who are asking for this Measure. In 1934 the committee that was examining this proposal refused to make such a recommendation. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to answer that point. The hon. Member for South Croydon has referred to further evidence of another body or committee which endorsed the opinion of the committee in 1934. Let us look at the position of the motorist. Progress has been made in regard to rear lights. We may remember that 30 years ago even a motor car carried an oil lamp that often went out in a gust of wind. Indeed, ordinary carts on country lanes did not carry rear lights in those days. Nobody bothered about the bicycle having a rear light 30 years ago or about motor cyclists having a rear light 25 years ago. There may have, been a law to the effect, but it was frequently broken.
3.45 p.m.
There have been mechanical improvements which have resulted in almost all motorists, whether driving along a country lane, along a by-pass or across London, being sure that the rear light is working. They can be sure that they are not breaking the law, because science, invention, electricians, motor engineers and those people who make motor cars and lamps, have made the position safe and certain. I ask anyone in this House who has a car to question his conscience, or that of his friend if he likes, and say whether that statement is contrary to the facts or not. I hope hon. Members will judge the arguments dispassionately in regard to what the Bill intends towards


cyclists. I believe that the average cyclist has not more than a 50 per cent. chance of observing the provisions of the Bill, if it becomes law. In making the law it is very important to remember that point. We are here as legislators and not as magistrates or policemen. We are making an Act of Parliament to be applied to the ordinary citizens, and the police have to act for us. Consequently we should examine what is likely to happen as a result of what we may decide. I believe that every Member of Parliament will recognise the validity of that appeal. The hon. Member for South Croydon said that various cycles which he saw on Saturday somewhere on the South coast did not have a rear light at all. I would add that in most of the industrial towns, if the wartime order were enforced by the police, 50 per cent. of the war workers would not bother in the winter months about going to work at all. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) was a little severe in one of his newspapers towards those who have been pleading the cause of the cyclists, but I believe that 50 per cent, of the miners in South Wales and Yorkshire who have to rely on bicycles would not go to work on some clays of the week if the police were to do their job. The reason would be partly because of the ineffectiveness of the rear-lighting system.
What is the most efficient rear lighting system, such as is being demanded by the Parliamentary Secretary and by this Measure? I am not advertising any particular firm but am speaking as an old cyclist. I would again bring to the notice of the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton the fact that I am not speaking for any club. I believe that the most efficient system is the dynamo set. In the main it works efficiently. It is reliable—provided that nobody steals it when the cycle is parked. Nobody ever stole the rear light of a motor car. [An HON. MEMBER: "They steal the car."] They may take the car, but they do not take it because of the rear light, and for every motor car that is stolen there are 10 bicycles stolen.

Mr. A. Bevan: They do something which is equally effective, steal the bulbs.

Mr. E. Walkden: I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to find out the num-

ber of cases reported in the last 12 months of motorists fined for having no rear light or no means of providing a rear light. I question whether there is one in 10,000 or one in 50,000. These figures do not mean a thing. What is involved here is the efficiency of the rear light, or the ability to provide the light we are demanding. The dynamo set is efficient so long as there is one in working order on the cycle, but in the winter months, when there are ice, snow and frost, it is doubtful whether that set will work efficiently, because the wheel of the dynamo slips, and the rear-light does not provide any more efficient indication than a reflector. There is uncertainty, therefore, in regard to the most efficient method, which is the dynamo.
What is the type of equipment provided on the average cycle to-day? Ninety-five per cent. or more of cycles to-day are equipped with batteries of a kind which, before the war, were mainly provided by Woolworths, because in the main the average cyclist is not a rich person. To the average cyclist his machine is a cheap form of transport, a means of getting out at the week-end, and a means of getting to his work and back home, which saves bus and train fares. Consequently, a few coppers one way or the other makes a lot of difference to the average cyclist. That being so, Woolworths cater for that class of trade, for which the manufacturers produce a very cheap and nasty and inefficient lighting set. Many people who have been carrying torches in the black-out during the last five years, have been as doubtful about them as about their petrol lighters. They have never been certain that they would work when they were needed. Similarly, when a battery set of the type I have described is fixed on the cycle, there are many doubts about its efficiency, which is demanded by this Clause.
The first doubt, if one works at a factory or mine, or goes to school, is, after one has left the machine, whether the light or the lighting set is there at all. Somebody may have stolen it. My two boys had two dynamo sets stolen in one month, when they were at the public baths. In the third month the cycle was taken. Here I wish to make one point clear, because the Parliamentary Secretary may try to catch me behind the wicket by saying, "If the rear light does not work, why is it the front light does?"


Most cyclists are able to detach their front light and take it with them into their work and deposit it in their lookers, or some other place of safety. The rear light is screwed or bolted on to the rear of the machine and cannot be detached by the owner in the same way as the front light. Consequently, there is first a doubt as to whether somebody who has not a rear light, has not been along with a spanner to detach one's rear light. To is doubt No. 1. Doubt No. 2, if there is a battery and nobody has stolen it, is whether the battery is working. Doubt No. 3 is whether the bulb is working. Everybody has used torches in the last five years, and many have experienced such a failure, and that is the experience of cyclists in every works in every part of the country to-day. Consequently the cyclist has fears and misgivings. He cannot be sure that the battery will work satisfactorily, or that the bulb will work. In a word, he cannot be sure of his rear light at all.
Assuming the rear light is working when the cyclist starts on his journey home at night—and most of the argument is concerned with night time—that the container, battery and torch are in proper order at the beginning of his journey, there are so many doubts and misgivings and so many uncertainties about the rear light that it is fairly obvious the cyclist has not more than a 50 per cent. chance of observing the law. Evidence is asked for, and evidence is to be found. I challenge any Member of this House to ask the chief officers of police of their towns, especially if they represent industrial areas, about what happens. Such officers maintain, as I have already indicated, that not more than 50 per cent. of the cyclists have been bothering about rear lights, and they add that they dare not take them to court because it would interfere unduly with industry.
May I here express my gratitude for the sincerity of the Minister in correcting a wrong impression he gave during earlier proceedings on the Bill? He then said that there were ample and sufficient supplies of batteries. He has since written a letter to three or four hon. Members, including myself, acknowledging that he was ill-informed or misinformed, and that he found there was not only a scarcity, but a tremendous shortage, of batteries, through circumstances over which we have no control. But this Measure is for

peace time. I am not putting the argument on a sentimental basis. I am trying to show to the Minister and the House that if the cyclist wishes to be a good honourable citizen, if he wishes to avoid prosecution, to avoid the punishment that follows from this Measure, his chances of doing so are not more than 50 per cent. It is more than likely that if the police become insistent on doing their job, there will be a big increase in the number of people brought before courts of summary jurisdiction.
That carries one to the question of the alternative. I believe that while the inventors, scientists and motor manufacturers have stood by the motorist, they have let the cyclist down. The cyclist has not had the benefit or advantage of all the improvements that have been devised to aid locomotion. For example, on the main roads to-day one may see very fine reflectors known to the local authorities as "cats' eyes." Many motorists know them; they are indeed most effective as reflectors. Why have bulb manufacturers or cycle manufacturers not produced something as efficient as these "cats' eyes" for rear reflectors for cycles, knowing full well that the lamp battery does not work, and the dynamo is uncertain, and that the old oil lamp is as out of date as the candle? Even modern cycles which I saw on Doncaster Station yesterday showed no attempt to provide something up-to-date, something as efficient and satisfactory as a rear light. I make this appeal to manufacturers: "You have tackled the job of bringing about streamlined cars and other wonderful inventions for the motorist. For goodness' sake tackle this job of providing something efficient for the cyclist," so that the cyclist does not have to rely on something that is doubtful, inefficient, fragile, and, in the main, unworkable.
4.0 p.m.
I question whether we really have examined this issue of supplies. I am terribly suspicious—and I do not like being suspicious—about certain trade interests. After the war very few people will be carrying these confounded torches. It had been suggested to me, not by evil-minded persons, but by citizens of good will, and even by magistrates, two of whom wrote to me the other day, that this is going to be a fine thing for the manufacturers of batteries, because it


assures them of a market for 50,000,000 batteries after the war. [Interruption.] The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) would be suspicious of the brewers if such a thing affected their interests. I suggest that a case has been made out this afternoon, which is unanswerable. If we pass this Bill into law—and I am not preaching sentiment, such as was objected to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brighton or by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and his colleagues in the "Tribune," but stark, naked facts—the average cyclist has not much chance of observing this law. It would be wrong for us to place on the Statute Book a law under which, we know beforehand, people have not more than a 50 per cent. chance of avoiding being prosecuted by the police.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: My only desire is to assist my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. We know that this Bill is not his; he is the foster parent. It was more nobly born; it comes from the gilded surroundings of the other House. I think it was conceived in impetuosity by Lord Leathers. The Parliamentary Secretary is loyal to him. He has put up his case splendidly, as he always does.

The Deputy-Chairman: The birth of the Bill has nothing to do with this Clause. The discussion has been very wide already, and we cannot go back to a discussion on the birth of the Bill now.

Mr. Baxter: I was coming to the most unsatisfactory feature of this child, which is this Clause. It seems to me that everybody will agree with the Parliamentary Secretary—and certainly the Clause refers to this point—that a red light is an additional safeguard. "Cats' eyes" would possibly also be an additional safeguard, but there is this trouble. Under the present custom, the motorist is responsible for driving safely at night. If there is an accident, and the cyclist is in a condition to-make his case for compensation, he simply says, "My light was lit." The motorist says, "It cannot have been lit; I would have seen it." That is an impossible legal situation. No matter how you examine a case like that, there is no possible basis on which you can give judgment. It would be much wiser if the

Parliamentary Secretary would advise the Minister of Transport to let us have a little time to consider the and this Clause especially. We all know, as cyclists and motorists—we on this side are naturally cyclists, and Members of the party opposite are motorists—that the real danger on the roads at night is the dazzle headlight. Why the Ministry are not dealing with that question, I do not know.

The Deputy-Chairman: I know that it is not in this Clause, and that the hon. Member cannot deal with it.

Mr. Baxter: I am one of your unfortunate victims, Mr. Williams. You very often advise me, and I am always humbly grateful for your advice. Therefore, I shall not delay the Committee if I cannot infer that a better child could have been born, and should have been born. I must bow to your Ruling, but, with great respect, if we are asked to pass a Clause in which a red lamp is indicated as a cure-all, am I not in a position to say that the Minister would be wiser to withdraw the Bill?

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman did not like the Bill, he should have made that sort of speech on the Second Reading. There are lots of things he can say on this Clause, but he should not ask the Minister to withdraw the Bill.

Mr. Baxter: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Williams. Nevertheless, if this Clause is not passed, the Bill is worthless, and I think, with great respect, that in differentiating so closely between the Bill and the Clause, you fail to realise that this Clause is the Bill.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is perfectly true that this Clause may be the body of the Bill, but in my Ruling I must take the Clause as a unit, and not consider what will happen to the Bill if this Clause is killed.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is it not the case that where the hon. Member is at fault is not in the irrelevancy of his remarks, but in his unfortunate choice of language? If he said "Clause" every time, instead of "Bill," would he not be perfectly in Order?

The Deputy-Chairman: I discovered that for myself years ago.

Mr. Baxter: The wisdom of the "Tribune" was coming to me. I was beginning to realise my mistake, but a Clause by any other name means just as much. It is obvious that the deep seriousness of my remarks is not appreciated, and, therefore, I will content myself with this observation. I stand before this nation as an enemy of the rear light. I realise that the pedestrian is also involved. We bring the innocent pedestrian into this tragedy we are discussing, and therefore I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should listen to the wise advice of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). I hope he will realise that this Clause, which is the body of the Bill—the Deputy-Chairman was good enough to reinforce me in that—was unfortunately conceived, and should never have been born.

Mr. A. Bevan: I have been very much agitated about this Bill from the very beginning. I think the Committee will acquit me of coming to the rescue of a Government Measure, merely on the grounds that it is a Government Measure. Therefore, I have been at some pains to try to make up my mind what I ought to do about this Clause. It seems to me that the opponents of the Clause have been trying to prove too much. In the first place, surely, in regard to the proportion of cyclists killed during the hours of darkness, to those killed during the hours of daylight, it has never occurred to them that, because 60 per cent. are killed during the hours of daylight, and 40 per cent. during the hours of darkness, there is any reason why we should not try to save the 40 per cent.

Sir H. Williams: May I just put this to my hon. Friend? It indicates the causation of accidents.

Mr. Bevan: No, it indicates the distribution of the causation of accidents. It would still be open for us to prove that many of the 40 per cent. would be alive if the machines were sufficiently illuminated. There is nothing in that point at all. There are a number of other elements which my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) indicated, because he himself, with his usual sagacity, realised on what extremely thin ice he was treading. I suggest that the reason why more cyclists are killed by day than by night, is that there are more cyclists abroad by day. That may have

some relevance, because, as a general rule, cyclists prefer to cycle by day rather than by night. More go on the roads, and more are killed. I do not understand why all these statistics have been introduced into the matter, and why the Parliamentary Secretary was accused, with such heat, of having withheld from the Committee information which would not have served us at all, if we had had it. All of us have enough experience to guide us upon this matter, and, of course, nothing arouses greater passion than this business of whether you are a motorist or a cyclist or pedestrian. If you are a pedestrian, you hate both cycles and cars. If you are in a car, you hate cyclists—

Mr. E. Walkden: And pedestrians, too.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, and pedestrians; it depends where you are. I have found the most passionate feeling in every category. Therefore, we have to try to make up our minds how we can devise a system by which all who have access to the roads can enjoy that right without being unnecessarily slaughtered. It is no use for hon. Members to argue that reflectors are adequate. Anyone who has driven a car on English roads and lanes, especially during the twilight hours, knows what real nonsense that is. In going round a left-hand bend, how can you get your own lights on a cyclist on the edge of the road? Your own lights are diverted away from him, and you are on top of him before you can see him.

Sir H. Williams: Why is it then, that the Ministry of War Transport causes highway authorities to guard most of these points by means of reflectors?

Mr. Bevan: Because nobody has yet suggested that it is not an additional safeguard. All these things are additional safeguards. Of course they are, and, therefore, everything which, itself, makes a contribution to safety, ought to be included, but nobody will argue that that is an adequate protection, because we know very well that it is not. Consider once more the point I was making. If your car is going in the direction of a left-hand bend, and there is a cyclist on the left, you cannot put your lights on him. Take the other case, which I have found over and over again, though I have been fortunate enough not to have been involved in an accident. I have been frightened — really frightened — when


driving a little car because cyclists going home from work usually dress in dark, working clothes. They do not normally wear their best clothes for work, but either grey or black clothing, which is almost indistinguishable from the gathering shadows around them. They are going at four, five or six miles an hour, and you are going in a car at 20, 30 or 40 miles an hour, and the difference between the two speeds is so great, that you are on top of the cyclists before you see them. Surely, it is folly to suggest that the House of Commons ought not to try, if it can, to protect the cyclists against this. I suggest that we should approach this matter in a spirit of more seriousness. If I were the father of children, I should be frightened to send them on the roads, as cyclists, unprotected.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. E. Walkden: Would the hon. Member, as a father of children, feel confident that, in turning them out on to the roads with a battery set, they were adequately and properly protected by the red rear light?

Mr. Bevan: I am coming to that in a moment. It is not a relevant interruption at all. It would not be less safe for them. Even if you argue that the battery is inadequate, you cannot argue that the cyclist would not be in greater danger without one, than with it. The point does not arise. The fact is that, at the present time, cyclists and motorists are on the roads and we must try to devise some way in which they can enjoy themselves safely. There is the other matter of the lights of the oncoming car. If you take off your own lights—

Mr. Beverley Baxter: On a point of Order. I attempted to speak on the dazzle of headlights and was stopped. The hon. Member is speaking on the same matter, but I have heard no objection.

The Deputy-Chairman: Possibly the hon. Gentleman was going fairly wide. I was trying to understand what he was saying, and I understood that he was talking of the effect of the dazzle lights on the reflector.

Mr. Bevan: The point is this. My hon. Friend spoke of doing something about the dazzle from the lights of other cars. I am not dealing with that point. All I

am saying is that, if reflectors are regarded as adequate for cyclists, then when you take off the lights of your car the effect has gone. I am speaking precisely of the relationship between the headlights of a motor-car and the reflector. The motorist is in a double difficulty. At the moment when he has already been sufficiently worried by the lights of an oncoming car, he has got to dim his own. His eyesight is affected at the very moment when he needs it most by his own dimmed out lights. At that very moment he is almost on top of the cyclist, whom he cannot see because of the practice in operation.

Mr. Baxter: May I thank my hon. Friend for making the very point which I was not allowed to make?

Mr. Bevan: I am ready at any moment to go privately aside with my hon. Friend to assist him in knowing how to make a speech relevant. The case is overwhelming for us to try, if we can, to make the cyclist provide himself with adequate lights. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) addressed himself quite properly to the question, Are these rear lights adequate in quantity?

Mr. E. Walkden: Quality, not quantity. I hope that my hon. Friend will read the observations I made.

Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend wants lights of proper quality in sufficient quantity.

Mr. Levy: Quality, quantity and cheapness—a commercial triple alliance.

Mr. Bevan: I am afraid I do not follow the point of that interruption. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is necessary to have lights if it can be shown at all that there is a suitable light on the market for the cyclist. You cannot impose an unreasonable obligation on the citizen. [Interruption.] I am not going to be a party to an argument between the cycle manufacturer and the battery manufacturer.

Sir H. Williams: I do not represent cycle manufacturers.

Mr. Bevan: The point is, are these contrivances available? We were told by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster that the scientists and inventors


have not addressed themselves sufficiently to the question of providing a proper light for cyclists. Why? The answer is obvious. We had to have a rear light on motor cars long before there was an effective rear light. It was necessary, in the interests of safety, for fast-moving vehicles—and when they were standing—to have some kind of warning rear light. It is a necessity to have a rear light if you can produce a good rear light.

Mr. Walkden: Exactly, I am with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend is not with me but against me. He is saying that the adoption of an effective rear light by cyclists would be a good stimulus to the inventor. If the provision of a good rear light is made compulsory in the case of cyclists, there would develop a market sufficiently large to induce the scientists to produce a good rear light.

Mr. Walkden: There should be an additional Clause in the Bill to defer the operation of the Act for two years, as was the case with regard to motor cars. My hon. Friend can be assured that I will back the Bill if there is a satisfactory rear light to do the job required.

Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend is not meeting the point at all. The point is that if we have to wait until a 100 per cent. efficient rear light has been invented before we impose the rear red light on cyclists we will not get it. If, in the meantime, we make it compulsory to use the best type of rear red light, then a better rear light will subsequently be evolved as in the case of the motor car. On most grounds a case has been made out. I have seen terrible casualties on the roads among cyclists. Some of the circulars and communications we receive go to show that many of the cyclists' organisations, and some of the cyclists, have developed an almost pathological hatred of fast-moving vehicles. I take an objective view of the situation, and it is the duty of Members of the House of Commons, while listening to all the things that are said by their constituents and carefully weighing all the views of people outside the House, to come down on the side of safety.

Mr. Levy: I have listened to all the arguments so far, and the real question is, Will rear lights on cycles reduce acci-

dents? That is the point to which we have to address our minds. I do not claim that Members of Parliament have a monopoly of intelligence. I am suggesting, with great respect, that among the millions of cyclists there are many who are as intelligent as Members of this House—in a number of cases they are more so. I have received letters from every cycling association in my constituency. My constituency is a county constituency and bicycles are used in it very extensively. In the majority of the villages and towns, there are cycling dubs and associations and often in the summertime cyclists return home late in the evening. I am prepared to give them credit for having sufficient common sense in their own interests and that, if they thought that a rear light was essential to their safety, they would provide it themselves, whether there was a law compelling them to do so or not.
4.30 p.m.
Further, if they felt that this red light was essential to their safety it would not require a law. I have not received a single letter advocating my support of the red lamp. Every letter, without any exception, has used reasoned arguments as to why it is unnecessary. I am a motorist and I contend that the reflector is ample to pick up the cyclist. I join issue with my hon. Friend opposite in his suggestion that when the light is dim, you cannot pick up the reflector. As far as my car is concerned—

Mr. A. Bevan: Obviously, as it is called a reflector and is a reflector, the less light you have, the less it reflects.

Mr. Levy: What I understood the hon. Member to say—perhaps I did not understand him correctly—was that when the light was dimmed, you could not pick up the reflector on the bicycle.

Mr. Bevan: What I said was that at the time when you dim your own lights, your eyes have already been partially dazzled by the oncoming lights of the car, and since you are not throwing as much light on the reflector of the cyclist, you therefore cannot see him, which I should have thought was self-evident.

Mr. Levy: If your eyes are dazzled by the oncoming lights, you would not be able to see anything anyhow, because you cannot see anything much then. I say that with great respect and humility


and I am not trying to score any cheap points. The letters I have received are "agin the law" so far as these red lights are concerned, even assuming they could be purchased, and I must agree that the battery red lights would be ineffective and inefficient in the majority of cases.
I am addressing myself to one simple point—whether the red light would be beneficial in preventing injury and accident to cyclists. That is all I am concerned with. If I thought that this House, by bringing in an Act to compel all cyclists to have a red light, would defend the people against themselves and would save even a few accidents to cyclists, I should be for it. As a motorist, however, I do not believe it will have that effect, and I am supported in my contention by every cycling club and association in my constituency. Those clubs and associations represent a good many thousands of people, and they cannot all be fools. They are not so stupid that they want to go out on bicycles and run the risk of having accidents if a lamp at the rear would prevent it. It does not make sense. Let us give these thousands of cyclists credit, in their own interests, for using it if they thought it was wise and would prevent accidents. It is no argument to say that the motor-car has a rear light, because that is the overtaking vehicle. You do not often see cyclists overtaking motor-cars, unless they are standing by the side of the road, or going very slowly indeed.
If I am right in my submission, another point which is very material is: If you bring in a law, whereby contributory negligence will effect an accident and it is contestable, when that accident occurred, whether the light was or was not there, you are putting the cyclist in a very invidious position, and you have no right to do that. Therefore, I suggest, with great respect, in view of the fact that two committees have sat on this particular issue, and that both by a majority have ruled that this red light is not necessary, that my hon. Friend should withdraw this Bill. I think further investigation is required and certainly the cycling associations and cycling dubs are entitled to be consulted and to be heard. If there is to be a vote on whether there shall or shall not be a red light, I shall vote against it.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) has made a very cogent plea. The brilliance of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) in spite of his bright headlights may have prevented him from receiving some very good reflections aroused by the speech of the hon. Member for Elland. But we do want to get away from brilliant repartee and argument and concentrate on the big issue, which is whether the compulsory rear light will be effective in reducing the large numbers of road accidents which at present we all so greatly regret. I think we have had most cogent arguments from the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) and the hon. Member for Elland, who are convinced that we have not had sufficient reasons for making this rear light compulsory. It has been pointed out that cyclists generally are opposed to this, and that they would not be opposed to it simply on the ground of a little additional expense. It is because they believe it would be an expense that would be wasted in many cases, an expense that would not provide an effective remedy because at present we have not a sufficient supply of effective red rear lights which could be relied upon in all circumstances, and those that are effective are expensive; it would mean a very heavy burden for a very large number of people even if the lights could be bought, and the lights cannot be bought in the market to-day, there are not enough.
Then I think we have to remember that not only when this Bill was read a Second time, but since the introduction of the Bill, the Pedestrians' Association have made their views perfectly clear. They consider that the passing of this Bill would make the position of the pedestrian more dangerous than it is at present. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I think on Second Reading, suggested, in reply to an argument that it would be necessary and logical to have a rear lamp for every pedestrian if we passed this Bill, that, after all, the pedestrians could run up into the hedge by the roadside. But they are not all able to do that; a great number of pedestrians are older people. Some of them are handicapped in one way or the other, and it is exceedingly difficult for many of them suddenly to run


into the hedgeside as a motor car rapidly approaches. As a result of the passing of this Bill, we may fear that there will be an increase in careless driving on the part of a certain number of motorists, who are at present a danger to the public. They will feel that they have additional security, that there is no likelihood of anybody being in the way, and a pedestrian who would not otherwise be run over will be run over because reasonable care has not been exercised by the motorist. The real remedy is that the motorist should preserve the caution enjoined upon him by the Highway Code, always to keep well within the limit of his lights.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps I may remind my hon. Friend that the Highway Code also says that where there is no footpath, the pedestrian should walk on the right-hand side of the road, so that he faces the oncoming traffic and will not, therefore, be in any danger of being hit from behind.

Mr. Harvey: My hon. Friend must be an optimist if he thinks that no pedestrian has been hit in the front by a motorist.

Mr. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend quoted the Highway Code, and I am entitled to quote it.

Mr. Levy: Is this further regimentation, and a rule to direct people on which side of the road they should walk?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, it is in the Highway Code, which was asked for by Parliament years ago.

Mr. Harvey: If motorists keep well within the limit of their lights then there will be protection against serious accidents. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give heed to the expressions of opinion which have come from this Committee, and from representative bodies all over the country, and will reconsider this Clause. I dislike it. If we remove the Clause we shall remove the principal danger, and the Bill will become comparatively harmless.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: I am never happier than when I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey), and I was equally happy yesterday to be completely in agreement with the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy). To-day, however, I

am not in agreement with them. I am in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), and. as that does not always happen it makes this Debate all the more intriguing. I am pleased to say that there has been no suggestion to-day that we should be influenced by electoral considerations. Some of the journals of the cycling Press have tried to put up that bogy, and have been urging their readers to write to Members of Parliament about this question. I have received 15 letters, and there has been no substantial evidence that there is very much amiss with what we-are doing.
4.45 p.m.
We have been told that there are 10,000,000 cyclists. As I say, I have received 15 letters. Next to the Parliamentary Secretary, I have been held too be the villain of the piece; I have been held up to some ridicule in the cycling Press, yet I have received only 15 letters. So, as Queen Victoria said, "I am not impressed." But I have been rather impressed by one sentence in to-day's issue of "Cycling," which bears out what my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale said about the peculiar mentality of some cyclists. They seem to be obsessed with hatred, which is a dreadful obsession. We do not sing hymns of hate in England, and I hope we never shall. I do not hate motorists, although they make me jump out of the way sometimes, and I certainly do not hate cyclists or pedestrians. I do not keep or drive a car, although I am often driven in one. This journal let slip a few words which show the extraordinary mentality of some of the people who are working up this case. It said:
Because vehicular traffic is permitted on public roads there are walkers and animals sharing the same highway.
The assumption there is that only walkers and cyclists are to be permitted on the roads—a most extraordinary state of mind. If I could talk to the person who wrote that I would ask him to be like the American lady who doubted very much whether the universe was real but who eventually became convinced and said, "I will accept it." In the same way I hope these people will accept the fact that there is traffic and the internal combustion engine, and that it will not disappear.
However, the point at issue is whether-it would help or injure a cyclist to use a red light. My hon. Friend the Member


for the Combined English Universities suggested that it was far from being a help, but I have no doubt that if it could be demonstrated that it would be a help in promoting safety we would vote for it. Is it or is it not? I have been particularly studying the matter for the past three weeks, and I would not support the Bill if I were not convinced that the Government view was the right one. Some weeks ago many of us received a memorandum from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which used to be the "Safety First" Association, on the Executive Committee of which I was at one time a member. This memorandum gives accident statistics in considerable detail and I am sure everybody who objects to the Bill will be impressed by what appears in Table 7. It shows that the number of adult cyclists killed in daylight runs to about 700 a year, or about two per day, with a much fewer number killed during the hours of darkness. Far more cycles are being used now than before the war—

Sir H. Williams: Not at night.

Mr. A. Walkden: Yes, according to the hon. Gentleman's own statement. What is the good of talking like that? Cyclists are moving in great numbers at all times, although, obviously, there are far fewer at night. This Table shows that since the red light has been required to be used fatalities have fallen by Too each year. I think that is worth while.

Sir H. Williams: May I ask a question?

Mr. A. Walkden: If the hon. Member must.

Sir H. Williams: Surely the hon. Member knows that in war-time there is a flood of bicycles on the road between 5 and 6 p.m. It is dark at that time in the winter and, thereafter, cycle traffic is negligible as compared to what it was in peace-time.

Mr. A. Walkden: I do not think there is much in that point. In the summer months there are fewer deaths and in the months of darkness there are more. But where the table is very impressive indeed is that, whereas in 1939–40 there were 360 cyclists killed in the hours of dark-ness, and in 1940–1 393, in the following years, 1941–2, 1942–3 and 1943–4. they

fell to 260, 282 and 283. The average in the two earlier years, when this requirement was not in operation, was 376, and in the succeeding three years, during which the Regulations have been in operation, it has fallen to 278. I think that is-convincing evidence and I am sure we can accept it. We all know that this very honourable body is anxious only to save life in these dangerous days. That is what impresses me more than anything.
It is said that only 50 per cent. of cyclists are carrying lights. In the little village in Surrey where I live there are no street lamps, and I walk over a common to my home every night. Coming out of the station, the road runs straight across at right angles and goes one way to Little Bookham and the other way to Great Bookham. Opposite the station is a factory, and the workers come out and go, some one way and some the other. One or two cars run out of the station yard and, day and night, buses run each way. As far as possible they try to meet the trains. There is no lighting except for one lamp at the entrance to the station. I watch the cyclists particularly and I agree that now and then there is one who has not a red lamp. When he has gone about 30 yards I do not see any more of him because he has turned to the right. A car comes out from the station yard and goes in the same direction. It could have seen the bicycle when it came out of the station gates if it had a red light, but it has gone round the corner and he has not seen it. It is when the cyclist is being caught up round the corner that is the danger point. Cyclists with rear lights are much safer than those without. The little red disc is a feeble thing, liable to get covered with dust and mud, and my observation goes to show that it is very ineffective. I am sure that cyclists would be better protected if they had a red light.
I have had letters from pedestrian associations as well as from cyclists. They seem greatly concerned, but I tell them that their position is quite simple. If they will walk on the right, they will see the coming car, whatever light it has, and can always step on to the grass, as I do. I do not think the pedestrian has much of a case. The notion that the red light will increase accidents is untenable. I think we have to save these people from themselves, and we have to do it to-day. The Clause had better be carried, and the


Bill had better be carried. It is madness to defer it. We must do it now. We ought not to play about with it day after day, wasting the time of the House. We ought to do our duty rapidly, conscientiously and effectively in the interest of the whole community, and particularly of the people who are directly concerned.

Colonel Lyons: It is not because of letters that I have received from my constituency that I oppose the Bill. The letters that I get come not so much from private individuals as from organisations. These cyclists are mainly of the working classes. If I thought they were wrong, I should not hesitate to say so. The hon. Member says we ought to get on with the Clause to-day and not defer it. Why not? The Government have the power now, under the Emergency Regulations. There is no need at all for the Clause to-day, however many Members support it. They have all the powers that they want. They are quite ineffective, because it is impossible for every cyclist to be equipped with a red lamp. It is not being done, and it will not be done if the Clause is put through to-day. The Minister only seeks power to bring the Act into effect at some future date.

Mr. Noel-Baker: This Clause comes into effect immediately.

Colonel Lyons: I stand corrected, but the Minister still has the power that I refer to without the Clause, a power which exists as long as the Emergency Regulations exist, and I hope that the Minister of Transport will remain all the time a Member of the Government. There is one thing that is important. The House has never been put in possession of the facts on which two representative bodies are against this proposal, and no answer has yet been forthcoming to the points put against the Clause by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams).

Mr. Noel-Baker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned these bodies before. I want to know precisely what they are.

Colonel Lyons: I understand that it is not contradicted that the council which was dealing with this matter set up a subcommittee which, by a small majority, made a representation against this pro-

posal which the Government have thought fit to keep from Members of the House. We have not been able to see the decisions that they reached, nor the evidence on which they based them. We were told that four or five years previously another Committee made representations to the same effect.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell us what it was.

Colonel Lyons: We heard of this to-day for the first time from my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon, who made these very points and was never challenged by the Minister. Before we discuss the Clause it would be much better to give us the findings and the evidence upon which they based their decisions.
5.0 p.m.
The lighting of rear lamps has been required under the Defence Regulations for a long time, but a point I want to make to-day is that there are no lamps available, and they are not likely to be available. I have not yet learned that anything has been done or can be done to overcome the battery shortage, a shortage which must be overcome if there is to be appropriate lighting. The Government cannot lose by waiting, and there is no need for them to have this Clause, because they have enough powers at the present time it they want them. The whole House would readily welcome any Measure if it would stop accidents, but no case has been made out that this Bill would stop any accident. We do not see any reason why this Clause should be passed to-day. We have discussed this afternoon a Bill which might have the greatest bearing upon this Clause and upon its implications. I would add my appeal to those already made to the Parliamentary Secretary and ask him whether he would not defer this Clause until we have had time to consider and complete the other Bill.
It is said that the agitation against this Bill was worked up. I do not think it was, and I do not think there was sufficient agitation against it. The more we consider it the more objections there are to it. I therefore venture to ask the Committee to come to the conclusion that this Clause does not give the Minister any more power than he has at present, and if the Clause goes to a Division I shall vote against it.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Like other lion. Members, I have been considerably exercised in my mind as to what I ought to do on this Bill, and I have come to the conclusion that I ought to vote for the Clause. I wish very briefly to give the reasons which compel me to make this decision. Like other hon. Members I have been subjected to a certain amount of pressure from cyclists' organisations, and I cannot help noting that same of these representations are in the spirit which was mentioned by the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and show a resentment of the use of the roads by faster vehicles. To cyclists I would recommend a verse that I came across in America not long ago, and which goes to the pith and core of this whole business:
Here lies the body of William Jay
Who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he rode along,
But he's just as dead as if he were wrong.
I cannot help thinking that that illustrates the whole point.

Mr. Levy: It would have been just the same if he had had a red rear lamp.

Mr. Brown: That is precisely the issue that we are discussing. I want to say that I am both a cyclist and a motorist and sometimes a pedestrian. I have never killed anybody on the road, but, if I have not, believe me, it has only been by the mercy of Providence. The truth is that there are certain conditions in which the cyclist is absolutely invisible to the motorist if he is without a rear light. The circumstances in which he is invisible are as follows. First at dusk, when the motorist has not got his lights on, or when there is not enough blackness to pick up the lights from a reflector. The second is when one turns a corner. I would impress this on the attention of the House. Our headlights are always forward. If they swivelled round, there might be a different answer. So long as they point forward, when turning a corner, there is an area of 20 to 30 yards in which any cyclist, unless he has a rear light, is completely invisible. The third is that the cyclists seem to imagine that if they are compelled to have a rear light there will be a temptation to motorists to increase their speed. There are, I think, two answers to that. The first is that the motorist's speed is governed by law, a maximum of so many miles per hour in the built-up areas. The second is that speed is not the dangerous thing on the roads.

Mr. Baxter: We are not talking about built-up areas. The danger is on the country roads where there is no limit.

Mr. Brown: I think I should have every motorist with me, and most Members of this Committee, in saying that the most dangerous thing on a road is not speed. The lack of visibility is one of the biggest dangers on the road and we cannot put that right, in my opinion, except by making the use of rear lamps compulsory. For these reasons, if this Clause goes to a Division, I shall vote with the Government.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I should think that after all this Debate the Committee would probably want to come to a decision about this Clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am prepared to give way to hon. Members if others wish to speak. I was interested, during the whole of this Debate in the contention, which has been put forward very much in discussions outside this House since the Second Reading stage, that we are rushing the Bill. It has been called: "Hell-for-Leathers legislation," and "an attempt to get through by snap methods what would be repugnant to any fair-minded Member." It has been urged—I rather think the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) urged it—that we need not press for this Clause to-day because under the Defence Regulations we have the power to make cyclists carry lights for perhaps two years more. That really is a misapprehension. All this lighting business is covered, as I said on the Second Reading, by Defence Regulation 24, and as soon as the fighting in Europe is over there will be a very general demand and a very strong case for the immediate withdrawal of Defence Regulation 24.

Colonel Lyons: And all controls.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Defence Regulation 24 is the one I am talking about and its subject is lighting, which is what we are discussing now. If it is argued that we can by another Order carry on this obligation, I think we should be straying very far from the intention and indeed from the terms of the Emergency Powers Act, if we were to do such a thing. The terms allow Orders:
Securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order, and the efficient prosecution of any war in which His Majesty's Government may be engaged and for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community.


Could it honestly be said that we ought to carry on this obligation by a Defence Regulation under the Emergency Powers Act? I do not believe any Hon. Member would say so. If there is not to be a hiatus in the obligation to carry lights, we need this Bill, and we need it pretty soon. The House agreed on Second Reading that it was desirable there should be no hiatus, and I think, therefore, the Committee ought to agree to this Clause.
Has it really been rushed? I do not want to repeat what I said before, but this business has been very extensively discussed ever since 1939. I do not believe that the cyclists have anything whatever new to say, and I make that remark after having had a good deal of experience in the last two months, indeed, in the last six months, of what they have to say. Has the Bill been rushed through the House? There were articles in the Press as long ago as last July which indicated plainly that it was under consideration. It is more than two months since the Bill was introduced in another place. There has been an active campaign in the cycling Press and widespread notice in the ordinary national Press. Over the last three months the cyclists have had very ample warning and time to make their case, and hon. Members have had ample warning and time to establish contact with their constituents if they so desired.
I come to what my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) said about statistics. He complained that I was not as candid as I might have been. Others have not been as candid as they might have been about the statistics, which have been very seriously perverted in discussions outside. Responsible people have written to me saying I made a grave mis-statement when I said that the total number of deaths in darkness had come down from 448 in peace-time to 273 during the war, and that I ought to have pointed out that the real comparison was with 133 people who were killed by collision from behind in peace-time, and that the total was 273 in the war years, that is, more than double. If 273 had been the figure of those who were killed by collision from behind, I should, indeed, have been guilty of the elementary mistake of seriously misleading the House by saying that there had probably been a reduction of deaths by collision from behind, in-

stead of admitting that it had doubled. Of course, the 273 was not the figure of those who were killed by collision from behind. It was the total of those killed during the hours of darkness.

Sir H. Williams: How many by collision from behind?

Mr. Noel-Baker: We do not know. That is one of the things which, during war-time, we cannot ask the police to do. The Pedestrians' Association took it on themselves to say that the vast majority of the 1,770 cyclists who had been killed in the hours of darkness since the war had been run down from behind. That was pure assumption, and I do not know what evidence they had to go on. We have none. All we know is that in peace conditions, when rear lights were not obligatory, the figure was well under one-third of the total deaths, 133 killed by collision from behind out of 448 killed in hours of darkness, and we submit that the proportion of those killed by collision from behind is now probably less than before, because they have carried rear lights. My hon. Friend said that I had quoted figures which were not properly analysed and that this Bill was based on those figures. I want to quote what I actually said:
Certain it is that statistics of road accidents are a very imperfect science. I would not try to prove very much from any statistics I have ever yet been given."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1945; Vol. 407, C. 1804.]
I then spoke of the figures with which I have been dealing, and I drew the conclusion that at least they did not prove that rear lights during the war had failed, as the deaths in daylight had remained the same as they were in peacetime, while the deaths at night had been reduced by more than 40 per cent. Then I said:
It has been said very freely that the figures of accidents during the war have proved that the rear lights are no good and that they have failed in their purpose. That conclusion I rebut, though I do not want to draw any other conclusion from what I am about to say."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1945; Vol. 407, C. 1804.]
Then I gave the figures I have just quoted. This Bill is not based on these statistics. It is based on the reports of authoritative bodies which have dealt with the question over the period of the last seven years. There have been three such bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) asked why we did


not consult the cyclists. There was the Report of the Transport Advisory Council, and no one complains that the cyclists were not consulted in the preparation of their Report.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Levy: The very Council to which my hon. Friend refers set up a Sub-Committee to investigate this question. The Sub-Committee reported, and the majority report was against the Ministry.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am going to deal with my hon. Friend's observation. There was also the Alness Select Committee of the House of Lords, which took exhaustive evidence. It has all been published and is in the Library. Then there is the present Road Safety Committee, which has an extremely able spokesman of the cyclists as a member. We are told that two committees have reported on the other side, one in 1934. This was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Leicester (Colonel Lyons). I can trace no such committee, unless my hon. Friends are referring to the committee stage of the Transport Act of that year. There was no committee which made inquiry and took evidence.

Mr. E. Walkden: It was a Committee upstairs, and I believe that the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) moved an Amendment, but nobody would support it.

Mr. Noel-Baker: That was not the kind of committee we are discussing now. It was a Committee of this House on a Bill, and the discussion on this subject lasted for 40 minutes. When it was over the Minister concerned said: "Let us try the white patch and the reflector first before we make red lights in the rear compulsory." That is what we have done. We have tried it for 10 years, and we are convinced that experience has shown that it is not right to trust to the reflector and the white patch alone. I come to the Committee of the Transport Advisory Council. On this my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon used very hard words, accusing me of lack of candour and gross discourtesy to the House, and of suppressing documents which I ought to have published. Let me deal with the question of publication.

The Transport Advisory Council is set up by the Minister of Transport under Statute. It is an independent body. It is not part of the Ministry and its documents are not in the Minister's possession. It is true that it set up a Sub-Committee which made a report and that the full Council then drew up its own findings and sent them to the Minister, who published them in a White Paper.

Sir H. Williams: The Sub-Committee made a recommendation in one direction after conducting a series of experiments. The people on the Council, who had not seen the experiments, and who were hostile to cyclists, reversed the decision of those who had carried out the experiments.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am coming to that point. I am now dealing with the question whether we ought to have published the report. It was plainly not possible for the Minister then to publish that report in the White Paper, as the Council had not sent it to him, any more than it would have been possible for him to publish many other memoranda and documents which they received. It is plainly not possible for my Noble Friend to take that document now and publish it to the world. If he did that these bodies would never know whether their proceedings would be confidential in times to come. I think that is perfectly plain.
Was it the case, as my hon. Friend said, that the experts who looked into this thing were out-voted by the non-experts on the Council? There was one cyclist on this body, and if you like to call him expert or mare expert than the others I do not object. Broadly, I should say that all—cyclists, motorists, the member who is now the Minister of Labour and all the rest—were either equally expert or equally non-expert. They were all people who had given their lives to traffic problems.

Sir H. Williams: Did they carry out experiments? That is the point.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am coming to that, if I am only allowed to do it in my own way. This is what happened. The committee of 13 members carried out certain tests and, on the basis of their experience of rear lights, seven were against rear lights and six were in favour of them, a majority of one. What happened then?


If my hon. Friend had read the White Paper he would know. This report was considered at length by all the members of the Council, who stated:
We are agreed that the recommendations … represent in present circumstances the most practicable measures which might be adopted for the better protection of cyclists and other road users. We have considered the matter very carefully, and our recommendations are based on the results of our own experimentation and lengthy discussions, as well on the opinions submitted.
Not every member saw the actual tests but they all heard full reports of them and they all knew everything that had resulted from the tests. They all had both sides fully presented by the seven and by the six respectively. It was all there, and they went on for a very long time, and they came to the conclusion
that the value to all of a rear light on cycles should outweigh the consideration of trouble and cost to the cyclist.
They also said that it was their duty to advise the Minister:
to adopt the method most likely to reduce the number of accidents, and if this involves imposing upon the cyclist some cost through the obligation to carry a rear light, such imposition is amply justified by the additional safety thus to be secured, not only to the cyclist himself but to all users of the highway.

Sir H. Williams: Nobody has raised the question of cost in the Debate.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am only saying what the Committee reported, and it was raised then. I am very glad that it has not been raised in the Debate as I think that is an important advance. The view I have quoted was adopted in the Council by 19 to 11. It is impossible to argue that the 19 who voted for it were not fully conversant with the tests, which had been at their disposal quite as much as at the disposal of the 11 other members, or with the full results of the experiments that had been made.
There is another point: Those who were against rear lights, the 11, put in a minority report, a reservation. Their whole case is set out here and printed in this same document. They were at liberty to include anything they liked. The rest would not have objected, whatever they said. In fact, there is a very full argument of their case.
I think I am entitled to say that the Transport Advisory Council has very fully considered the merits of the matter. They

had the evidence at their disposal and they were an expert body—for if any of them were experts they all were—and their 19-to-11 vote was a decisive majority in favour of rear lights. They so advised the Minister then.
There followed the Alness Report, which was unanimous, and then followed the Committee on Road Safety, whose conclusions I summarise and do not quote. They have only gone over the ground that the Alness Committee covered. They have come unanimously, but for one cyclists' representative who is a member, to the same conclusion. They were a varied body, but an expert and very able body. That is the evidence on which the Bill is based. It is because of those recommendations that we bring the Bill forward, and I venture to say that no Minister of Transport in these days could disregard recommendations of that kind, put to him so forcibly and with such remarkable unanimity of opinion on such a point.
I now come to the question of equipment, which has been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) said that manufacturers ought to try to get a red reflector as efficient as the Cat's-eye. My reply is that the red reflectors on cycles are optically efficient. They have to conform to minimum standards which have been laid down under Regulations made under the Act of 1927, and if they fall below those standards they are rejected. Where they fail is in the way which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) so admirably described. They fail on corners, on curves, and on undulations. They fail when lights have to be dipped because of the dazzle of an on-coming vehicle. There are many conditions in ordinary traffic—and 80 per cent. of all accidents happen in towns—where the reflector is not sufficient to save the life of the cyclist. We believe that the experience of the last 10 years since the committee discussion in 1934 has proved that truth.
With regard to shortage of batteries, I have written to my hon. Friends who raised the matter on the Second Reading to say that I did unintentionally, and because of inadequate information rather mislead the House. My Department had then received no information that there was a shortage in any part of the coun-


try. We have now heard that in some places there is a shortage, and we have done our best to put it right. The President of the Board of Trade has promised his full co-operation to that end and we hope that much may be done. While that is an important matter, I suggest that it is irrelevant to the Bill. The Bill imposes no new obligation on cyclists to carry a red rear light. The obligation exists now and no hon. Member proposes to abolish the existing Order because there is a shortage of batteries. In peace time, when the Bill will really be of practical effect and when it is really required, it will only be a very short time before the shortage of batteries is put completely right. I do not believe that any hon. Member thinks there will be a shortage of battery equipment in peace time. I would apologise again for having been inadequately informed before the Second Reading, but I do not think that that in any way affects the merits of this Clause.
Now I come to the question of other forms of lighting equipment. In our last discussion I quoted from a communication which I had had from Messrs. Lucas. I think I did right to do so. It is right that the House should know. I am quite ready, if the hon. Member for South Croydon desires it, to nationalise the Lucas industry, but until we do so I think I am obliged to take the evidence of those who supply the goods to the public.

Sir H. Williams: Does the Minister expect any firm to supply him with an adverse report of its products, whether the firm is nationalised or not nationalised?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am fully justified in quoting this important evidence from the Lucas firm that they are convinced that the technical problems of proper equipment for the cyclists can be and are being overcome, and that after the war much greater progress will be made. I have another letter which I should like to read, from my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Harmon), in which he says:
You may be interested to know that the B.S.A. experts have developed a device which will give front and rear light in continuous contact with a tiny tell-tale light on the front lamp to indicate that both lights are in working order. I saw a bicycle furnished with this contrivance on Saturday morning.
Perhaps I might add the last paragraph of the letter:

My own view is that there is far too much fuss made by the cyclists, and that if once they could be persuaded that by making a very small expenditure their safety on the road would be assured, the present opposition would disappear.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. E. Walkden: Does my hon. Friend realise that while this is a good advertisement for the B.S.A., that invention actually came from Holland over nine years ago, and that it has not been satisfactory in Holland?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not think we should be in Order in discussing the merits of private enterprise this afternoon.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I should like to say that the B.S.A. do not want any advertisement out of this business.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have not time to advertise anybody. If I may quote the words used by the hon. Member for South Croydon, "Joking apart," lights are becoming better. Of course they are, and of course we can look forward to new progress, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) said, "The Bill will produce the lights."
One last word about equipment—on dazzle. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) asked: "Why do you deal with this before dealing with dazzle?" We are dealing with dazzle.

Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order. When the hon. Member sought to discuss dazzle Mr. Williams tilled him out of Order.

The Chairman (Major Milner): We are getting extremely wide of the Clause, and things have been said which are perhaps not in Order. I hope we shall confine ourselves to the merits of the Clause.

Mr. Cocks: After the incident referred to, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) also raised the question of dazzle, and was allowed to continue.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps in one sentence, subject to your Ruling, Major Milner, I may say that I can conceive that it would be a good argument o in discussing Clause 1 in Committee to say that rear lights ought not to be introduced until the problem of dazzle had been dealt with. But dazzle is a very complex


and difficult matter. We have not got the answer, but we are determined to get it. The hon. Member's argument seems to me to be: "Do not do anything you can do until you can do everything you want to do." If we do that we shall never solve the problem of road safety.

Mr. Baxter: There was an anti-dazzle light 20 years ago which threw a light below the horizontal for 200 yards, and which was sold to Germany, where it was sold in very large quantities.

Viscountess Astor: Yes, and look at the result.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I know about that, and I know also the grave objections there are to it. As I say, we have not got the proper answer yet, but I hope we are going to get it. The whole of the cyclists' case against this Clause was stated by a man who wrote a letter to the Press, in which he said:
Some day a wise statesman will wash out rear lights altogether from every vehicle and decree simply that the law will punish those who do not look where they are going.
I have examined every bit of evidence the cyclists have ever given, and I have listened to the cycling Member of the Road Safety Committee. Their whole case is exactly that. But it is against the experience of every country. Every Parliament and legislative body in the world has imposed red rear lights on moving vehicles, and, of course, they are right.
How much opinion is there against this Clause? Judging by my postbag, not very much. I compare my experience with that of the hon. Member for Elland. Cycling organisations have been urged officially in their journals to write to their Members of Parliament and to my Noble Friend and to me. That has been urged in emphatic terms, and many energetic club secretaries have gone round to get letters written. Out of 10,000,000 cyclists my Minister and I have had 115 communications. That figure speaks for itself. We have a fearful problem of road safety to deal with after the war. I desire to say a word to the cyclists and to all other road users as well. The deaths from air bombardment in this country throughout the war, up to the end of 1944, were 58,000. Deaths on the roads were 41,051. The seriously injured from German bombing, V.1 and V.2, numbered 81000—and serious injury is often worse than death. There were

30,000 more seriously injured on the roads—117,000.—[Interruption.] About 1,700 cyclists—1,700—were killed at night. That is the relevant point. We are going to solve the road safety problem by a great number of measures, from each of which we get a small result. Anyone who looks for a sovereign remedy is utterly ignorant of the problem to be solved. We believe this Measure will produce a real and significant result. Very soon we shall ask for many other Measures which will bear much more onerously on other classes of road users—

The Chairman: We really cannot go into that now.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If this Clause is defeated I venture to think that any further attempt to deal with road safety will be gravely imperilled. I therefore beg the Committee to accept this Clause, and I appeal to them, and to everybody outside as well, to ensure that a new and better spirit shall prevail.

Mr. Cocks: The Parliamentary Secretary has made an extremely able speech as to why this Clause should be accepted, but I think he rather exaggerated in his last sentence. I only wish he had waited a few minutes before getting up, because there were certain arguments which have been put forward by the cyclists and pedestrians which have not been answered by the Minister or any other speakers this afternoon. I speak not as an expert motorist, nor as an expert cyclist. I can hardly claim to speak as an expert pedestrian. In fact I have almost got to the stage of the late Joseph Chamberlain, who, when he wanted to cross a road, took a cab in order to do so. My main exercise is to walk from the Library or Smoke-room to this Chamber and back again.
Although I am not an expert on these things, I had, like everybody else, a superficial feeling when I saw this Bill, that it must be safer for cyclists to have a red light than not to have one. It is the sort of thing that appeals to everybody at first sight. If it is necessary for cyclists to carry a red light for the sake of safety, there is nothing to stop them from doing it. There is no Act to prevent them. Every cyclist can do so voluntarily. They do not seem to think that a compulsory red light is a good thing. They have put forward certain technical


reasons; I do not know whether they are good reasons or not, which have not yet been answered, or fully answered, in this Committee. For example, they say that a reflector is very much more efficient than a red light. Certainly these "Cat's-eye" reflectors one sees on the road seem to me to be very bright indeed. They say that the red light, although you can see it a long way ahead, gives no sense of distance or position, and you do not know whether it is coming nearer to you or not; in fact, that the nearer you approach the red light with your own lights the dimmer it becomes, until, when you are almost upon it, it almost disappears. They say that the reflector does just the opposite, and the nearer you approach to it the brighter it becomes.
They give this evidence. There was a test carried out by the Ministry of Transport in 1937. Two neutral motor cars, each carrying a Ministry of Transport observer, were sent to chase two cyclists, riding abreast, one of whom carried a live rear light while the other carried only a reflector. Both cars reported that they picked up the man with the reflector first, and that as they got nearer to him the beam from his reflector got brighter. The cyclist with the live rear light, while not so quickly discernible in the darkness, disappeared from a light point of view, as the same headlights which increased the power of the reflector, quite naturally diminished the live rear light, being much more powerful. That point has not been answered by the Minister, but perhaps he could answer it. On the other hand, the motorists say that the reflector is liable to be obscured by mud and dust, while the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) gave some very good reasons why at certain times, such as at dusk, or when certain things are happening, or at a certain angle of the road, a reflector becomes almost useless. As a result of those arguments, I feel that cyclists should be obliged to see that their reflectors are kept clean, and there may be a case for having bigger reflectors, or for mounting them in a different position from where they are at present. I should like to see further inquiry made before this Clause is passed.
I have no intention of repeating the legal arguments used on the Second Reading, but it seems to me that the

cyclist is at a disadvantage, when the motorist can say that his light was out, and the cyclist can only say, "It was burning when I last looked at it." It is difficult to see how this can be overcome unless the cyclist frequently dismounts, or unless the bicycle is equipped with that famous device from Birmingham, which we have heard about, which will show in front whether the light is on or not. The cyclists say that motorists should be compelled to drive well within the limits of their lights, and Mr. S. F. Edge, who is a cyclist as well as a motorist, defined this by saying that the headlights should show an obstacle at least twice as far ahead as the distance in which the car can be pulled up. They say that if rear lights are made compulsory there will be a tendency for motorists to speed up and to disregard everything between them and the red light—to disregard any obstacle which has not a red light. This will include pedestrians, who do not carry a light, although they may be occasionally lit up. I think that that is a real danger.
5.45 P.m.
In spite of the very strong superficial arguments in favour of making a red light compulsory, the fact remains that this proposal was always resisted. Even before the war, when there were so many motor cars on the road that it was said you could walk from Croydon to Brighton on their roofs, without touching the ground, this rule was not applied. We have heard about Sub-Committee 13, which opposed the compulsory application of the red light, but we have not heard what they said. Let me quote what they said:
While agreeing … with the recommendation that steps should be taken to ensure a higher standard of efficiency of the existing compulsory reflector, plus white patch, on pedal cycles, we cannot concur in the recommendation that in addition the use of a rear light should be made compulsory.
That was overridden by the main Advisory Council, but I think it is significant that the Committee which heard evidence should have decided against the proposal, even if only by a majority of one. I think it would he a mistake to press this Clause without a further inquiry, perhaps by a Select Committee of this House. I think, on further inquiry, it may be shown that the red light is the correct proposal, but I am not yet satisfied of that on the evidence, and, therefore, unless I hear any other argument in


answer to what I have just said, I propose to vote against the Clause.

Mr. Noel-Baker: As I very much want my hon. Friend's vote, I will answer in two or three sentences. The advantage of the light against the reflector is that it is seen first. The motorist has more time to slow up. In some circumstances, the reflector is more efficient than the light; therefore, under this Clause, we propose to keep both. I add, for the final conviction of my hon. Friend, that I hope that Parliament will do many things after the war which have been successfully resisted in times gone by.

Sir Henry Fildes: Sir Henry Fildes (Dumfries) rose—

Hon. Members: Divide.

Sir H. Fildes: I intend to speak, and if other Members have dinner appointments it does not matter. we have 10,000,000 cyclists in this country. We have no evidence that batteries and lamps will be available for them. If you read your insurance policy you will find that the fact that you have not got a light, for any reason, will go very strongly against any claim that you have. We are all anxious to lessen the number of accidents, but there are 10,000,000

bicycles in the country now, and can the Minister tell us what the number was seven years ago? Has he this information?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No.

Sir H. Fildes: It is very important that we should know. We are told that there are twice as many accidents, but if there are twice as many bicycles on the road that is natural. I think the Committee would do well to delay this Clause. We require more information.
I have listened to the Debate, and I have felt that we do not know enough to take the responsibility either of voting against the Clause or for it, and, if the Minister could see his way to delay this Clause and bring it in at a later stage, when we could have more information, I think he would be wise, I think he should indicate, after he has stated that there are 10,000,000 bicycles now, how many there were seven years ago, because that might destroy the value of a number of the statistics that have been given to-day.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided Ayes, 132; Noes, 24.

Division No. 8]
AYES.
[5.53 p.m.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Edmondson Major Sir J.
Markham, Major S. F.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.


Apsley, Lady
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Martin, J. H.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fermoy, Lord
Mothers, G.


Beechnman, N. A.
Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Grant-Ferris, Wing-Comdr. R.
Molson, A. H. E.


Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)
Greenwell, Colonel T. G.
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)


Benson, G.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)


Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale)
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Nall, Sir J.


Bossom, A. C.
Guest, Lt-Col. H. (Drake)
Neal, H.


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Gunston, Major Sir D. W.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Bower, Comdr. R. T. (Gleveland)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Bowles, F. G.
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckross)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Herbert, Petty-Officer A. P. (Oxf'd U.)
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hogg, Hon. Q. MoG.
Prior, Comdr. R. M.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hopkinson, A.
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Bull, B. B
Horabin, T L.
Salt, E. W.


Butcher, H. W.
Hubbard, T. F.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cadogan, Major Sir E.
Hudson, Sir A. (Hackney, N.)
Savory, Professor D. L.


Cary, R. A.
Hughes, R. Moelwyn
Scott, Donald (Wansback)


Charleton, H. C.
James, Wing-Com. A. (Well'borough)
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)


Clarke, Colonel R. S.
Jennings, R.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.


Cobb, Captain E. C.
John, W.
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.


Colman, N. C. D.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Conant, Major R. J. E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Spears, Maj.-Gen. Sir E. L.


Cox, Captain H. B. Trevor
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Comdr. Hon. L. W.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Critchley, A.
Keatinge, Major E. M.
Storey, S.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lawson, H. M. (Skipton)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lipson, D. L.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Drews, C.
Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Studholme, Major H. G.


Duckworth, W. R (Moss Side)
Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Dunglass, Lord
McNeil, H.
Suirdale, Colonel Viscount




Summers, G. S.
Tree, A. R. L. F.
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Sutcliffe, H.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Woodburn, A.


Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Tasker, Sir R. I.
Ward, Col. Sir A. (Hull)
York, Major C.


Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'd'ton, S.)
Watson, W. McL.
Young, Major A. S. L. (Partick)


Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)



Thorneycroft, Maj. G. E. P. (St'ff'd)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:-


Tinker, J. J.
Wilkinson, Rt. Hon. Ellen
Major A. S. L. Young and


Tomlinson, G.
Willoughby, de Eresby, Major Lord
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.




NOES.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Harvey, T. E.
Naylor, T. E.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Shinwell, E.


Buchanan, G.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sorensen, R. W.


Burke, W. A.
Levy, T.
Stokes, R. R.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Lloyd, C. E. (Dudley)
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Cocks, F. S.
Loftus, P. C.
Windsor-Clive, Lt.-Col. G.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lyons, Colonel A. M.



Entwistle, Sir C. F
Montague, F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:-


Glanville, J. E.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. (Rochdale)
Mr. E. Walkden and




Sir H. Williams.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Relaxation when machine is at rest.)

In the case of pedal bicycles fitted with dynamo equipment exhibiting a red light when the bicycle is in motion no offence shall be committed by reason only of the fact that the machine when at rest exhibited no rear light.—[Mr. Quintin Hogg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
6.0 p.m.
The point is a very short and simple one. Under Clause 3, a stationary vehicle is protected, provided that it is as near as possible to the near or left-hand edge of the carriageway, until the Minister thinks fit to remove the protection. It really is going a little too far to ask the cyclist to carry a device which ensures that when his machine is at rest, his dynamo equipment, which only operates when the machine is in motion and which works perfectly during that time, shall show a red light. Cyclists stop at traffic lights, and sometimes when quite well out on the road, they may stop suddenly without warning. It would be absurd to render them subject to prosecution, either under the provisions of Clause 3 or subsequently by Ministerial Order, when all the time they have a reasonable dynamo equipment. I know that it will be said that a device could be attached to a dynamo equipment. We all know that when we have to get off our bicycles because of traffic lights or any other sudden cause, we do not like to have to fiddle about at switches. For that reason I suggest that the proposed new Clause is

a reasonable one and that the Minister will be trying to put a little paint on the lily if he places reliance on such a device as has been indicated.

Sir H. Williams: This is a very surprising proposal. Here we have the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), whom I counted in the Lobby in favour of a rear lamp, saying that there may be times when it is not easy for a cyclist to have such a light. He is an interested person. He has told us so. He is one of the proud possessors of a bicycle with nine dynamos, and I do not think that he should adopt this attitude. He wants to be sure that the Minister will not ensure that he will be fined if, for some reason, he is standing on the road with his bicycle. I think that a standing bicycle is far more dangerous than a moving one. This is a most reactionary Clause and I hope it will not be accepted.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I hope that the Government will accept the new Clause even if they cannot, in every way, agree with the wording. It is reasonable to allow a privilege such as is suggested in the Clause to a cyclist who stops at the road traffic lights or for some other reason for a moment, and if it works satisfactorily now under the existing regulations there is no reason why this should not be extended indefinitely. I hope that, although the Minister is not able to meet the claims of cyclists on the major issue, the much more important one, he will have some regard to their views on this one. At the road traffic lights there is less excuse for a motorist running over a cyclist who is momentarily stationary there, even if he has not got any kind of rear light. The very fact that there are traffic lights is a warning to the motorist to stop, some


time before he gets to the point. There ought to be no reason for an accident simply because a cyclist is not able to show a rear lamp. I think that the dynamo light is the most popular form of electric light among cyclists and is most efficient, but even that is sometimes uncertain, That is another reason why the principle of the Clause should be accepted by the Minister.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I want to support the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) in his Amendment. There is a certain doubt not only when the cyclist is stationary, but when the cycle is being pushed. We have been told that when the cyclist has a dynamo an efficient light is given if the cycle is moving at two or three miles an hour, but when a test was recently made of two cycles going at six miles, and possibly seven miles, an hour no really effective light was produced. I wish we could have persuaded the hon. Member for Oxford to have gone a little further with his argument in favour of the cyclist who is also able to prove, if his cycle is stationary and he is pulled up by the police, that his battery light is deficient.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is exactly where the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) would have been out of Order if he had tried to do it.

Mr. Walkden: I was only hoping that it would have been for the purposes of illustration. There is a good reason why the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member should be further amended by a reasoned argument that where a deficiency can be proved the police should not have authority to prosecute.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I hope to persuade my hon. Friend that he ought not to press the Clause to a Division. The conditions to which the Clause relate, that is when cyclists are stopped by traffic signals, by police, or in a traffic block, are dangerous conditions. They are the more dangerous because cyclists very often try to weave their way forward to the front of the traffic block between the vehicles. It is extremely important, therefore, that drivers should be aware that they are going by and should have the warning which a red light would give. My hon. Friend's new Clause applies only to bicycles with dynamo equipment. That is one of the difficulties. The relaxa-

tion is confined to the rear light only. Front lights must be kept on when the cycle is stationary under the existing prewar legislation. Under his Amendment the relaxation would apply wherever the bicycle was, whether in the middle of the road or whether it was parked by the side of the road. At first we took the view, in the Ministry, and I did myself, that my hon. Friend was right and that the technical difficulties of overcoming this would be considerable and that it would be better to do what he now proposes or something rather like it. We changed our view when we reflected that, under the existing pre-war legislation, the front light has to be on in any case when a dynamo bicycle is stopped in traffic.
The cyclist must therefore have the battery and the switch to which my hon. Friend referred, as well as the dynamo. When we reflected that under Clause I he must also have the rear light, it seemed to us not really common sense not to ask him to wire his rear light to the battery which he has to have for his front light, so that both lights can be switched on at the same time. I hope, in fact, with the new inventions that are coming, all the business of switching on and off will be wiped out, and the batteries will be much more efficient, and that this will work very smoothly and efficiently for the cyclist. I think it will cost very little more, but, in any case, I do not think my hon. Friend thinks that cost should be a decisive point. I hope he will see that our plan is really sound and that he will agree to accept the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Hogg: I am afraid I find the argument of my hon. Friend singularly unpersuasive. It seems to me to be unrealistic in the extreme. It is, of course, true that the owner of a cycle fitted with a dynamo and without a switch and battery attached, commits an offence when he stops at the traffic lights in respect of his front light, but everybody knows that does not stop him from being equipped in exactly that way, and there are probably more than 50,000 bicycles so equipped. There is nothing more calculated to bring the law into disrepute than to pass a law which is not observed, and I cannot imagine anything so absurd as to rely on an existing provision of the law, which, in fact, is wholly and widely disregarded, as an argument against an Amendment to a proposed Bill which will make the Bill a little more in accordance


with what people will be prepared to do. I do not think that my hon. Friend did justice to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) in regard to the traffic light and the road block, because at that stage it is not the rear light which warns the traffic when the bicycle is weaving in and out of vehicles, it is the sight of the bicycle. I do not propose to press this Clause to a Division, because it does not seem to me to be of sufficient consequence to do so, but I regret that my hon. Friend did not see fit to accept the principle, and I am not without hope even now, that, on reflection, he may not come to think that he was ill-advised.

The Deputy-Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Clause be withdrawn?

Mr. E. Harvey: The hon. Member did not ask leave to withdraw his Clause.

The Deputy-Chairman: I was not quite sure whether he did or not.

Mr. Hogg: I thought it had better be negatived.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — LICENSING PLANNING (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

As amended, considered.

6.14 p.m.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Definition of "local planning authority.")

(1) In this Act the expression "local planning authority" means such a council as is mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932.
(2) Where there is in force an agreement made under Sub-section (2) of Section two of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, or under any corresponding enactment repealed by that Act, for relinquishing in favour of the council of a county any of the powers and duties under that Act or Section one of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, of the council of a county district, then, for the purposes of Section one and of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section two of this Act—

(a) the council of the county shall be deemed to be a local planning authority; and
(b) if the council of the county district have relinquished all their powers under the said enactments, they shall be deemed not to be a local planning authority.

(3) For the purposes of Section one and of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section two of this Act a joint committee appointed under Section three or four of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, or under a repealed enactment relating to town planning shall be deemed to be a local planning authority.—[Mr. Henry Strauss.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Henry Strauss): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a new definition of local planning authority. There is a later Amendment, consequential on this, striking out the existing definition in the Bill, and this new definition of local planning authority is to bring the local planning authority in this Bill into line with the local planning authority under the planning code. The local planning authority under that code is in general defined in Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, but there is a possibility of the powers of the local planning authority, as so defined, being transferred in whole or in part to a county council, and in the latter case this Clause provides that the county council as well as the local planning authority shall be local planning authorities for the purpose of this Statute, that is to say, together they will appoint half the members of the committees that are being set up. Sub-section (3) provides for the case of a joint committee. I think that the new Clause is really commonsense. It merely makes the planning authority for the purpose of this Bill what the planning authority is under the planning legislation.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Licensing planning committees.)

Sir Joseph Lamb: I beg to move, in page1, line 20, at end, insert:
from among persons prominent in the public life of the area.
I should like to thank the Minister for what he has just done in regard to the new Clause, because it was submitted in consultation with the local authorities and he has given what they required. My Amendment seeks to rectify what was probably an omission, because the words have been lifted from the report made to


the Minister himself for consideration, and I think it is his intention that the object of this Amendment should be carried out. My object in putting it down is that that object may be stated in the Bill, and so that we may be assured that the conditions which his own committee have reported as desirable and necessary should be effective.

Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): I am sorry we cannot accept the Amendment, although that is not because my right hon. Friend has not every sympathy with it. We cannot accept it because we think it is unnecessary, since it is the intention of the Home Secretary to carry out to the full the suggestions of the Morris Committee on this matter. To begin with, we are informed by the lawyers that if we accepted these words they would be very difficult of legal definition. Secondly, we are going to carry out the proposals of the Morris Committee with intention, and therefore it is really not necessary. With that assurance I do hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.

Sir J. Lamb: I am sorry to hear the statement made by the right hon. Lady, for this reason, that she has said it is necessary because it is the Department's intention to do it—

Miss Wilkinson: I said "unnecessary."

Sir J. Lamb: I understood it was the intention to do it but that it was not necessary to put it in the Bill. The point I want to make is that if it is necessary for my right hon. Friend to do it, it is necessary to put it in the Bill because otherwise he is doing something which is not law.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): The hon. Gentleman cannot make a second speech.. He can withdraw his Amendment, but, I am very sorry, he cannot make a second speech.

Sir J. Lamb: As it would be useless to put it to a vote, I must of necessity withdraw my Amendment, but not with very good grace.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 4.—(General duties of licensing planning committees.)

Miss Wilkinson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, after "area," insert:
the accommodation provided thereat, and the facilities given thereat for obtaining food.
The purpose of this Amendment is to implement the undertaking I gave in Committee to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Major Taylor). The House will perhaps recall that I stated at that time that it was the Government's intention that licensing planning committees should take into account facilities for food and accommodation when considering the suitability of licensed premises. I promised that we would be prepared to reconsider the wording of Clause 4, and if necessary, to introduce an Amendment on Report stage to make that clear. The word "accommodation" is intended to have a wide meaning. It covers not merely sleeping accommodation—which is not a question that usually arises—but also general structural facilities. For example, it would cover the space that is required for customers to take their refreshment at a table.
It would also include outdoor accommodation, such as gardens or bowling greens. The Amendment moved during the Committee stage dealt, also, with the requirements of visitors from overseas, and I promised to look into it. This, however, is a separate point, and it is covered, without amendment to the Bill, by the expression, "local requirements." I am advised that this expression means not merely the requirements of the residents in the locality, but also those resulting from daytime visitors, or a seasonal influx of visitors into the area. That is made clear in the Report by the Morris Committee. I promised the Committee that we would see that the attention of the licensing planning committee was called to the point when they were advised of their functions under the Bill, and that will be done. With this assurance I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment.

Viscountess Astor: I am glad that the right hon. Lady has not given in on the question of overseas visitors. May I remind her what has happened in Plymouth and other towns? The minute the drink trade has had a chance to sell tea and coffee, after selling their liquor, they have closed their houses.


So long as the drink trade is in the hands of private enterprise they will go in for selling liquor and nothing else. In the last war we made great forward strides in temperance reform, and I regret to say that we have lost all that ground in this war. It is a sad commentary on present day conditions, when young people are in uniform and girls are free for the first time in their lives, that the Government have not shown more vision and more understanding on the drink question. We have begged public houses to keep open and sell tea and coffee, so that young people would not have to walk about the streets, but they have refused. Once they have sold their liquor they have closed.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 13.—(Interpretation.)

Amendment made: In page 9, line 35, leave out Sub-section (2).—[Miss Wilkinson.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I be allowed to say a very few words on the Third Reading of this Measure, which is, of course, unique in the history of the drink problem? During the Committee stage I asked the right hon. Lady one or two questions about a very special subject connected with this Bill. Hon. Members will understand that this Measure provides facilities for drinking in public houses and clubs, but there is still another avenue for supplying drink, namely through what are commonly called "bottle shops." Licences are provided through the Customs and Excise for these shops. The authorities, whatever their views may be about public houses and clubs, are, I am pleased to say, somewhat alarmed about these bottle shops, because, through them, there can be a great deal of drinking under cover and on the sly, as it were. In Committee, the right hon. Lady said that if it was found that wholesale dealers were taking advantage of the provisions of this Bill to prejudice the field of the licensing planning authority the problem would have to be considered again along those lines. Indeed, it is quite possible that the provisions of this Bill may be completely nullified if wholesale

dealers are allowed to open a large number of these bottle shops in the new planning areas. That would mean that public houses or clubs would not then be required at all. This Bill therefore seems incomplete, and not entirely in tune with the recommendations of the Morris Committee, on which it is based. I hope that the Government can tell us something hopeful to-day about the attitude of the Home Office towards the problem of these bottle shops.

6.26 p.m.

Petty-Officer Alan Herbert (Oxford University): Astonishing as it may seem, I want to support my Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) in this matter. To a great extent we have the same ideals about licensed victuallers not sufficiently reminding themselves of their title of "licensed victualler." They are not eager enough to provide food and other refreshment besides drink, although I do not think they are quite as bad as my Noble Friend seems to think. We both want to see that public-houses are not mere drinking-dens, but places where you can get food and other amenities, such as music and games. During the Committee stage, I spoke of licensing justices and brewers who seemed to go counter to our common ideals, and who set their faces against music and games and any enlargement of licensed premises. A brewer may want to make a public-house bigger and better, but certain licensing justices say, "No; if we allow amenities to be added, there will be a larger drinking area. We would rather keep the place squalid." The Home Secretary, by this Bill, can lay down conditions about the kind of justices who are to be appointed, and I hope he will remember that.
The House will agree that it is perfectly lawful to play lawful games on Sundays on licensed premises, innocent games like "shove ha'penny," darts, skittles and, maybe, backgammon, although not billiards, because that is not legal. Playing those games militates against drinking and drunkenness. It is impossible to throw a dart, let alone a good dart, if you are drinking. Every game played diminishes drinking, and I should have thought that everybody on a licensing bench would agree. But that is not so; recently, a man in Liverpool wrote to me and said, "The licensing justices in my part of the


world are playing the old game. They come round, through the police, and threaten us that if we allow darts, backgammon and 'shove ha'penny' to be played on Sunday on our premises, we shall lose our licences at the next Sessions." Some years ago I asked Sir Samuel Hoare, now Lord Templewood, who was then Home Secretary, whether this procedure was justifiable according to the law, and in the course of a very long answer he said that there was no shadow of doubt that it was quite legal to play lawful games like that on licensed premises on Sundays, and that no justices had any right to make those threats. It was a kind of unlicensed blackmail. I know it is difficult for a Home Secretary, when appointing justices, to go into the history of everything, but perhaps the right hon. Lady would like to support the announcement of her predecessor and discourage those ideas. Anybody, whether brewers or publicans, or improperly acting licensing justices, who reduces public-houses to mere drinking-places is going counter to the desires of everybody in this House.

6.30 p.m.

Viscountess Astor: I am delighted to be in harmony with the last speaker, but I really feel that he has not been interested in temperance as long as I have. As long as drink is in the hands of private enterprise, the trade are bound to push their goods. If they made as much by selling tea, coffee and food, you would get your games and it would be delightful. I hope the day will come when that will be possible, but it is not near yet. The brewers have made enormous profits. They always make profits, whatever happens. I am not blaming the brewers. I am blaming the people who make it possible. They could sell tea, cocoa and coffee, and show that they were interested in the public, but we have proof after proof that the minute the drink stops they close, and there are soldiers, sailors and airmen walking up and down the street with nowhere to go. Much as I should like to see these reforms, I do not think you will ever get them as long as the trade is in the hands of private enterprise. Before the war we were always talking about the Continental system.

Mr. Speaker: This is a limited Bill dealing with justices' licences in blitzed areas. It is not in Order to raise the whole licensing problem in this Third Reading Debate.

Viscountess Astor: The Parliamentary Secretary said that in granting licences they were going to broaden the basis on which they asked people to come in and help. I should like to ask her to consider the claim of certain organised bodies to be heard. Will she ask the churches and chapels and social organisations which are concerned with the interest of young people? It is they of whom we are mostly thinking. After you get to a certain age, no one cares whether you are drunk or sober, but the whole country is interested in the future of its children. I beg her to consider people who have no prejudices, but whose one desire is to make the world better for the children.

6.33 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wes though ton (Mr. Davies), we are very conscious of the fact that there may possibly be an increase in the number of the kind of premises that he has referred to as bottle-shops. I gave an assurance in Committee that, if we found that wholesale dealers were taking advantage of Section III of the Licensing Act to prejudice the work of licensing planning committees, the problem would be considered again. I repeat that promise, because we are very much concerned about it. I have looked into the matter since my hon. Friend raised it with me and I find that the Commissioners lave discretion to refuse a licence to wholesalers where they were not in business prior to 1939, and therefore there is a check on new entrants into the business. We considered his Amendment but it was outside the scope of the Bill and, therefore, it was not possible for him to move it or for us to accept it, but the matter is being carefully watched.
We fully sympathise with the point of view put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) that licensed premises should not simply be places where the largest amount of alcohol can he consumed in the quickest possible time. While this is a very limited Bill, the powers that it contains will be exercised in the new premises which are to be put up in the new planning areas. I can assure the hon. Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) that we always take into account such organisations as churches and chapels, which can put their views before the Committees when these things are being discussed. Also we are


fully alive to the necessity of taking into account in these inquiries the views of those who are concerned with young people, particularly the youth organisations which are now becoming such an important part of our national life.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

SERVICE PERSONNEL, FAR EAST (PAMPHLETS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: Now that the excitement has died down, and Members are leaving the Chamber, I wish to refer to something which I believe to be of very great importance. What I have to say arises out of the statement of the Prime Minister with regard to the welfare of the Armed Forces in the Far East:
In order that Servicemen overseas may keep abreast of important developments in social policy at home, pamphlets explaining new legislation on matters of major importance will be prepared and distributed to Servicemen and Merchant Seamen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December. 1944; Vol. 406, c. 1789.]
I welcome that declaration very much, because I believe that the more discussion of political matters in broad terms there is among those in the Forces the higher will be the fighting morale of the men concerned and the better citizens they will be when they return home. I have had some experience of this kind of discussion of broad political principles in the Forces. I hope that this intention of the Government to distribute and prepare pamphlets is an indication of some relaxation of the present Regulation, because I certainly believe that that will be necessary before the General Election comes along. There are two things we ought to watch in the distribution of these pamphlets. The first is that they shall not be in any way utilised by one party to put their particular policy at the expense of another. We do not want one-sided propaganda. Second, I believe that if the discussions to which these pamphlets are to give rise are to be of any value, both sides of any controversial issue must be put, because you cannot have a full

discussion if only one side is heard. I asked the Prime Minister on 17th January who was to be responsible for preparing the pamphlets and how divergent views were to be included when the legislation was of a controversial nature. The Deputy Prime Minister replied:
These pamphlets will be prepared under the authority of the Minister or Ministers responsible for the particular policy described. The object of the pamphlets will be explanation, not advocacy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1945; Vol. 407, c. 155.]
My contention is that one cannot explain a piece of important social legislation without indulging in advocacy. I believe, therefore, that the case which the Government made that the pamphlets should be provided by the Ministers concerned shows political bias and makes any proper discussion on them impossible. If we are to start describing or explaining a piece of legislation, no matter how impartial we may be, we must make certain assumptions before we start. I do not think anyone will challenge me when I say that any important piece of social legislation which has been put through in the last year or so has been acceptable to the Conservative Party. They have the majority in the Government, so that any such legislation that has been acceptable to them has gone through. What will happen in the General Election? The Conservative Party will take such credit as there is to be had for the Education Act and other Measures. I am sure it will be a big part of their platform to say: "Look at all these good things the Conservative Party has done in the past." I am sure, too, that the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, who have joined in the Coalition and will be fighting as independent parties, will have to say something like this: "We agreed to these Measures as a compromise. We would have liked to go very much further, but because there was a Coalition Government and the major thing was winning the war, we had to agree to these half measures." Any explanation and description of the Town and Country Planning Bill, for instance, will inevitably put the Conservative point of view, and leave out the kind of legislation which the other parties would have introduced.
If these pamphlets contain only a description of the legislation prepared by the Ministers concerned, they will inevitably be Conservative propaganda for the next election. Presumably, when this statement refers to new legislation, what


may be in mind is legislation which is foreshadowed, about which we have had White Papers and promises. At the General Election, this, I imagine, will be the main Conservative case: "We are the people who have been mainly responsible for drafting White Papers dealing with various reforms; surely we are the  who ought to be voted in to carry them into legislation." The pamphlets which will be issued to the troops describing the Government's schemes for the post-war world will inevitably be a reprint of the sort of promises which will be made to the electorate by the Conservative Party at the General Election. I think I am on safe ground. in maintaining that the single-view description of legislation will be propaganda for the Conservative Party, and will not in any way describe the policy and measures which are being advocated by the other parties.
I come to another point, which is of more importance. When one is describing a piece of legislation which has been passed by this Government, or which is promised after the election, one has to make the assumption that the present economic, political and social principles are valid for the world in which we are going to live after the war; that is, the basis of providing legislation is that there are certain fixed principles which must go on. I am one of those who believe that the principles on which the present order of society is based are not valid for the age in which we are moving.
What, then, are some of the principles of the existing order of society? One is that the natural resources belong as of right to private individuals. Another is that the people of this country cannot produce the goods they need or build the homes they require unless the payment of dividends at so much per cent. is maintained. Further, men cannot set to work to make the things they need unless there is to be a reasonable profit for those who own the means of production. Organised self-interest is regarded as a good and sufficient regulator of our economic life. I do not wish to go on and make out a case that these principles are bad. I hope no hon. Member will disagree that those are the principles of the present order of society, or that there are men and women in this country who believe that those principles have to give place to something different. I believe, therefore, that pamphlets describing legislation based on

those principles are essentially propaganda against the principles of the order of society which I believe must come.
The order of society which is coming must be based upon the principles that natural resources belong to the whole community; that the wealth we can produce shall be distributed in accordance with the needs of the individual and the service that the individual renders to society; that the whole basis of profits, dividends and interest must be rejected. I believe that if the we build our society on the idea that it must always pay to have people working rather than people idle, and that we must reject out of hand the idea that profit is a good and sufficient regulator of production on the ground that it does not work and cannot give full employment and maximum use of our resources, and that inasmuch as it is organised self-interest it is a completely unethical basis for society. I do not think I have to bring forward arguments in support of my beliefs. I have only to demonstrate them and to remind the Government that those beliefs exist. I believe that what I have said will find a very great deal of support in the Labour Party.
In conclusion, let me say I am glad that the Government have stated their case. I wish to see the Government putting forward their case both in regard to the details of their legislation and the principles on which it is based. Democracy demands that any pamphlets which put forward that legislation in detail and therefore put forward propaganda in support of implied principles shall contain the other side. I am not asking for an equal amount of space, but for a certain amount of space, to be devoted to criticisms in detail made by the Labour Party and Liberal Party, for instance, of various Measures such as the Town and Country Planning Act and the Water Bill, and an examination of the principles on which the legislation is based, as well as the contrary point of view. I believe that that is possible and perfectly healthy, and I ask the Government to consider the matter again and decide that both points of view shall be included in those pamphlets.

6.54 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I do not propose to express any view to-night on which party will get the benefit—to use


my hon. Friend's phrase—from the undoubted achievements of the present Government, but I do dissent from his view that the Government are producing pamphlets which express a Conservative point of view and show Conservative bias, Let me remind the House of the situation with which we have to deal. As we all know, several million men are away on overseas service. The great majority of them are intensely interested in what the future has in store for them—jobs, homes, social insurance and education. The Government have ample evidence before them of their intense interest in these matters. No one would deny that in present circumstances many of these men, and many of the women in the Services, too, are cut off from White Papers and Acts of Parliament, and inevitably are largely out of touch with major political developments, and it was in relation to this background that the Prime Minister made his statement on 20th December, to which my hon. Friend has referred.
Let me say a word about these pamphlets. The pamphlets, which are to be issued to all British Forces overseas, will describe the new social legislation which it is the intention of Parliament to have in operation after the war. In some cases, for example, education, they will describe schemes which have already been embodied in Acts of Parliament, schemes to which Parliament has set the official seal of approval by enacting legislation. In other cases, for example, the new scheme of national insurance, pamphlets will describe proposals in the form of White Papers which have been debated in this House and have received the general approval of Parliament, although they have not yet been passed into law. The intermediate case will be that in which a policy has been approved in general terms in Debate on a White Paper, and a Bill is at the moment under discussion: the Family Allowances Bill could be in this intermediate position. Another example is a pamphlet on the resettlement of the demobilised soldier, which is to be published shortly by the Ministry of Labour.
I would emphasise that these pamphlets will be factual and objective statements. Their purpose is to state shortly and in simple language what is proposed. They will seek to describe and to explain, not to justify. My hon. Friend is surely wrong in claiming that no one can describe

a piece of social legislation unless he agrees with it or that a purely factual description cannot be given without any trace of advocacy. Surely it can be given in a purely objective way as a statement of fact. This point can be illustrated by the 3d. booklet on the Social Insurance Scheme published by the Ministry of Reconstruction. This document—I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen it—states in simple language what the contributions and benefits would be under the new scheme if Parliament accepted it, and what would be the conditions under which the benefits would be payable. These, in my submission, are all statements of fact. There is no argument in the booklet suggesting that these rates are generous. There is, therefore, no case for including a critic's reasons for regarding them as inadequate. The sole purpose of the booklet is to enable the ordinary reader to see at a glance what his position would be under the Government's scheme.
All these proposals have, as we all know, been put forward by a Coalition Government, including members of all the main political parties. In the Debate on the Address Government spokesmen took the line that whatever the result of the next General Election may be, these plans can be taken up and carried through by the next Government and Parliament, with the sure knowledge that they are broadly based on the people's will. In the words of the Prime Minister:
All the leading men in both principal parties, and in the Liberal Party as well, are pledged and committed to this great mass of social legislation, and I cannot conceive that, whatever may be the complexion of the new House, they will personally fail to make good their promises and commitments to the people
I believe that the House and the country will endorse wholeheartedly this positive action of the Government to indicate to our serving men and women what they propose to do in the way of social reconstruction, if for no other reason than that our serving men have the right to know what the Government's plans are on matters vitally affecting their welfare on their return to civilian life.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Driberg: May I put two points to my hon. and learned Friend, arising out of his last words? Certainly the serving men have a right to know what the Government's plans are, but also—and I should have thought that this was something to which we could all


agree, no matter what side of the House we sit on—in a few months the serving men are going to be asked to vote, one way or another, and all of us, presumably, hope. that they will vote intelligently—whatever our view of an intelligent vote may be. I do not see how they can be expected to vote intelligently unless they know the arguments one way and the other. It is not only a question of having the facts about the Government's present proposals, but also of having the arguments for and against those proposals, and how they may be modified or extended. Therefore, I want to support what the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Lawson) has said about the necessity for giving the serving men, as fairly and impartially as possible, some kind of data for actual argument, something to think over and chew over himself, and to discuss with his friends and comrades.
My second point is this. On a previous occasion, in one of these Adjournment Debates, I made a rather similar suggestion in relation to A.B.C.A. pamphlets. I suggested that the A.B.C.A. pamphlet on any Government scheme might contain a very brief summary of the Parliamentary Debate on that subject, and my hon. and learned Friend replied, impromptu, that it would be too difficult to make that summary impartial, that there would be complaints from people who had been left out, and so on. I think that if he thinks again he will see that it is not so impossible. The B.B.C. manages, most nights and at week-ends, to give a Parliamentary summary, which is very intelligent and very impartial on the whole. Occasionally it provokes some criticism from hon. Members on one side or the other, but the Minister of Information is never at a loss to defend its impartiality, as we know well; and I suggest that it would be no more difficult, in fact rather easier, with the greater time at the disposal of the people concerned, to prepare a completely impartial summary of the relevant Debates to include in these pamphlets, and in the A.B.C.A. bulletins. I am sure that, in the minute or two that remain, if my hon. and learned Friend wishes to comment on what I have said, he will have the leave of the House to do so.

7.4 P.m.

Sir Richard Acland: It seemed to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman was entirely oblivious to the

real point made, by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson). In the very few minutes that are left I would like to try to put it again—I do not expect him to reply again, but so that he and his political colleagues may think about it. We are having factual descriptions—and I accept that they will be factual—of certain main projected and proposed Acts of Parliament, which we do not expect to get passed by this Parliament before the General Election. It is not, I think, a secret that the Conservative Party will go to the country saying to the people: "Send us back to Parliament for the main purpose of passing these Acts of Parliament." That will be the Conservative Party's policy. I understand that the Labour Party, the Liberal Party, the I.L.P., the Communist Party and all parties, I think, will go to the country saying something quite different. They will be saying, almost with a shrug of assurance: "Yes, indeed, we would pass such Acts as these," but in the case of the Labour Party, they will say: "The main reason why we want you to return us to Parliament, and not the Conservative Party, is because we want to nationalise the means of production, distribution and exchange." Is that not what the Labour Party is going to the country to ask for this time? It will be very interesting to have a political reply to that question.
So the effect of the totality of pamphlets, each one of which, subject to the criticisms of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), with which I agree, may be quite unexceptionable, will be to give to Service men overseas a very full description of the policy of the Conservative Party, paid for out of the public purse, but not one syllabic or line of description of the policy of the Labour Party or of any other of the parties I have mentioned. That is the gravamen of our case, and it did not seem to me that, in his reply, my hon. and learned Friend referred to that argument, which was put forward by the hon. Member for Skipton in such a way that it could not be avoided. It is a deplorable position, but, in the one minute left, I hope the Minister may give a reply.

Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes after Seven o'Clock.